Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First National Bank is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Reynolds, and the defendant, Crawfordsville First National Bank, over a promissory note. Reynolds had signed a promissory note to the bank for $2,000, and the bank had agreed to lend him the money. However, Reynolds failed to pay the note when it was due, and the bank sued him for the amount. The Supreme Court held that the bank was entitled to recover the amount of the note from Reynolds. The Court reasoned that the bank had a valid contract with Reynolds, and that Reynolds had breached the contract by failing to pay the note when it was due. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to recover interest on the note from Reynolds, as the contract provided for such interest. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bank was entitled to recover the amount of the note from Reynolds, as well as interest on the note. The Court's decision established that a party who breaches a contract is liable for any damages that result from the breach.

In Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First National Bank, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out on an insurance policy that had been assigned by its original owner to another party. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, ruling that it did not have any legal obligation to honor the assignment and thus could not be held liable for damages resulting from its refusal to do so. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under Indiana law at the time of the dispute, banks were required to recognize assignments made by their customers and should therefore be responsible for honoring them when requested. He further argued that since there was no evidence presented indicating otherwise, it would have been reasonable for a jury or court of equity to find in favor of plaintiff's claim against defendant bank.