In Potter v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Potter, sued the National Bank of the United States for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its officers. Potter alleged that the bank had failed to properly supervise its officers, resulting in the 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 a national bank was a corporation and, as such, was responsible for the acts of its officers. The Court further held that the bank was liable for the acts of its officers even if the bank had not been negligent in supervising them. The Court's decision in Potter v. National Bank established that a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the liability of national banks for the wrongful acts of their officers.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Potter v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that Congress had not intended for national banks to be able to issue notes of less than five dollars, as this would lead to a proliferation of small bills which could easily become lost or stolen. Furthermore, he noted that there were already laws on the books prohibiting such practices by state-chartered banks and thus it should also apply equally to national banks. Finally, Justice Field argued that allowing such practices would create an unfair advantage for national banks over their state counterparts since they would have access to more funds with fewer restrictions. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Congress did not intend for national banknotes of less than five dollars and therefore any attempts by them do so should be prohibited under law.