In the case of Moore Printing Typewriter Company v. National Savings and Trust Company, 1910, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a typewriter company could claim damages from a bank for cashing fraudulent checks. The plaintiff (Moore Printing Typewriter Co.) had been defrauded by an employee who forged checks on its account at the defendant's bank (National Savings and Trust). The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that it is not within a bank’s duty to verify signatures unless there are suspicious circumstances surrounding them. Furthermore, they stated that if any negligence occurred in this situation it would be on part of Moore Printing Typewriter Co., as they failed to detect their employee’s fraudulence sooner. Therefore, banks cannot be held liable for cashing fraudulent checks without knowledge or suspicion of forgery.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore Printing Typewriter Company v. National Savings and Trust Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of National Savings and Trust was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the original trial had been conducted, particularly regarding evidence presented by both parties. They contended that certain pieces of evidence should not have been admitted due to their questionable relevance or credibility, while other crucial pieces of information were unfairly excluded from consideration. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of existing laws used by the majority to justify their decision. In essence, they felt that justice had not been served because procedural errors during trial significantly impacted its outcome.