Oulton v. Savings Institution was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between a bank and a customer over the bank's refusal to honor a check. The customer, Oulton, had deposited a check with the bank, but the bank refused to honor it because the check was not endorsed by the payee. Oulton sued the bank, arguing that the bank was obligated to honor the check regardless of whether it was endorsed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bank, holding that the bank was not obligated to honor the check without the endorsement. The Court reasoned that the bank had a right to protect itself from fraud and that the endorsement was necessary to ensure that the check was valid. The Court also noted that the customer had the option of obtaining the endorsement before depositing the check, and that the bank was not obligated to accept the check without it. The decision in Oulton v. Savings Institution established that banks are not obligated to honor checks without the endorsement of the payee. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes between banks and customers over the validity of checks.

In Oulton v. Savings Institution, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a savings institution could be held liable for an employee’s negligence in failing to pay out funds on time. The majority opinion found that the institution could not be held liable because it had no control over its employees and thus did not have any responsibility for their actions. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that since the institution had hired and paid its employees, it should bear some responsibility for their negligent acts. He argued that if employers were allowed to escape liability simply by claiming they had no control over their employees’ actions then there would be little incentive for them to exercise proper oversight of those same workers. As such, he believed that employers should still face some degree of accountability when one of their agents acted negligently or unlawfully while carrying out his duties on behalf of the employer.