In the case of Huntington v. Savings Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a savings bank was liable for the debts of its depositors. The case arose when a depositor of the savings bank failed to pay a debt to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff sought to recover the debt from the savings bank. The Supreme Court held that the savings bank was not liable for the debts of its depositors. The Court reasoned that the savings bank was not a guarantor of the debts of its depositors, and that the depositor was solely responsible for the payment of his or her own debts. The Court further noted that the savings bank had no control over the use of the funds deposited by its customers, and that the savings bank was not liable for the debts of its depositors. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the savings bank was not liable for the debts of its depositors. The Court reasoned that the savings bank was not a guarantor of the debts of its depositors, and that the depositor was solely responsible for the payment of his or her own debts.

In the case of Huntington v. Savings 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 prior cases had held that when a contract is made with two or more parties, each party has an equal right to enforce it against all other parties unless there is some special agreement between them providing otherwise. In this case, however, the majority found that one party could not sue another for breach of contract because they were both members of the same corporation. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and argued instead that since no such special agreement existed between them then each should have been allowed to bring suit against any other member who breached their contractual obligations regardless of corporate membership status. He concluded by stating his belief that allowing only one side access to legal remedies while denying it from others would be manifestly unfair and therefore urged reversal on appeal so as to restore equality among contracting parties under existing law.