Pelton v. National Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Pelton, sued the defendant, National Bank, for damages resulting from the bank's officers' misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court held that a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its officers because it had the power to control them. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its officers. The Court further held that the bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its officers even if the bank was unaware of the officers' misdeeds. The Court reasoned that the bank should have known of the officers' misdeeds because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its officers. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its officers and that the bank should have known of the officers' misdeeds.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Pelton v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound reasoning. He argued that a bank could not be held liable for an act of its cashier which it had no knowledge or control over, as this would lead to unjust results and place too much responsibility on banks for their employees' actions. Furthermore, he noted that there were other remedies available to creditors who wished to recover money from a bank employee who had wrongfully taken funds; thus, allowing them recourse without holding the bank responsible for something outside of its control. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that while he sympathized with Pelton's plight due to his unfortunate circumstances, it did not justify overturning established law and creating new liability rules against banks when they have done nothing wrong themselves.