Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The plaintiff, Hitz, had deposited a check with the defendant bank, which was then stolen by one of the bank's employees. Hitz sued the bank for negligence, claiming that the bank should have taken steps to protect his check from theft. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the negligence of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to its customers to exercise reasonable care in protecting their deposits, and that the bank had failed to do so in this case. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to its customers to investigate any suspicious activity, and that the bank had failed to do so in this case. The Court's decision established that banks can be held liable for the negligence of their employees, and that banks must take reasonable steps to protect their customers' deposits. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to establish the standard of care that banks must exercise when dealing with their customers.

In Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, when a bank received money from its customers for deposit into their accounts, it became bound by law to hold those funds as trustee for them until they were withdrawn or otherwise disposed of according to their instructions. In this case, however, the court held that because there had been no specific agreement between the parties regarding how long such deposits should be kept on account before being returned upon demand by either party, then no trust relationship existed between them and thus no liability could attach against the bank if it failed to return such deposits upon demand. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that regardless of any express agreement between parties concerning length of time for holding deposited funds on account before returning them upon request; once money is placed in a bank’s custody as part of an ordinary banking transaction then it becomes subject to certain legal obligations including prompt repayment at all times unless some other arrangement has been made with respect thereto beforehand.