In Miller v. Lancaster Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, Miller, sued the defendant, Lancaster Bank, for damages resulting from the bank's employees' negligence in handling his account. The Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its employees because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the management of its business. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to its customers to ensure that its employees acted in a manner consistent with the bank's policies and procedures. The Court concluded that the bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees and that Miller was entitled to damages. The Court also noted that the bank was not liable for any losses that Miller suffered as a result of his own negligence. This case established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Miller v. Lancaster Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to a "great practical injustice." He argued that under existing law, when an individual deposits money into a bank account they are creating a trust relationship between themselves and the bank. The depositor is entrusting their funds to be held by the bank for safekeeping until such time as they can withdraw them or use them for other purposes. In this case, Justice Field noted that there had been no breach of contract on behalf of either party; rather it was simply an issue of whether or not one party could unilaterally change terms without notice to another party who had already agreed upon those terms at some point in time. As such, he argued that any attempt by one side to modify these conditions should have been considered invalid since both parties were bound by their original agreement. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent stating that if banks were allowed to alter agreements without informing customers then it would create great uncertainty within banking transactions and ultimately lead to much greater harm than good for all involved parties