In the 1902 case of Rankin v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for damages when it refused to honor checks presented by a depositor who had sufficient funds in his account. The plaintiff, Mr. Rankin, argued that he suffered financial loss and damage to his reputation as a result of the defendant's actions. The defendant contended that they were justified in their refusal due to suspicions about Mr. Rankin's business practices. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Rankin stating that banks have an obligation to honor checks drawn by depositors who have adequate funds unless there is evidence of fraud or illegality associated with those transactions - mere suspicion does not suffice as grounds for refusing payment on validly issued checks from adequately funded accounts.

In the dissenting opinion for Rankin v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider the nature of a bank's fiduciary duty in relation to its customers' deposits. The dissent contended that when a customer makes a deposit at a bank, they are entrusting their money with an expectation of safety and security. Therefore, if the bank uses this money without proper authorization or fails to return it upon demand by the depositor, then it has breached its fiduciary duty. In this case, according to dissenting justices, Fidelity Bank had violated these duties by using Rankin’s deposited funds as collateral for loans made out to third parties without his knowledge or consent; thus making them liable for damages incurred due to such actions.