Manhattan Bank of Memphis v. Walker was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1877. The case involved a dispute between the Manhattan Bank of Memphis and the Walker family over a loan that the bank had made to the Walkers. The bank had loaned the Walkers $2,000, and the Walkers had agreed to pay the loan back with interest. However, the Walkers had failed to make the payments, and the bank sued them for the money. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that the Walkers had breached their contract with the bank and were liable for the money. The Court held that the bank had the right to sue the Walkers for the money, and that the Walkers were liable for the full amount of the loan plus interest. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees from the Walkers. The decision in Manhattan Bank of Memphis v. Walker established the principle that a bank can sue a borrower for the money owed on a loan, and that the borrower is liable for the full amount of the loan plus interest. The decision also established that the bank is entitled to recover its costs and attorney's fees from the borrower. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal principles governing loan contracts.

In Manhattan Bank of Memphis v. Walker, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been frozen by court order. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it did not have any legal obligation to pay out funds from an account which had been frozen by court order. However, Justice Black dissented and argued that banks should be held responsible for their actions when they fail to comply with court orders or other applicable laws. He noted that if banks were allowed to ignore such orders without consequence then it would undermine public confidence in the banking system as well as respect for law enforcement officials who are tasked with enforcing them. Furthermore, he argued that allowing banks this kind of immunity would create a dangerous precedent wherein financial institutions could act recklessly and without fear of repercussion or accountability for their actions.