In the case of Sandusky v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Sandusky, sued the defendant, National Bank, for damages resulting from the bank's officers' alleged misappropriation of funds. The Court held that a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers, provided that the acts were done within the scope of their authority. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its officers, as it had the power to appoint and remove them, and was responsible for their actions. The Court also held that the bank was not liable for the acts of its officers if they were done outside the scope of their authority. The Court reasoned that the bank could not be held liable for the acts of its officers if they were done without the bank's knowledge or consent. In conclusion, the Court held that a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers, provided that the acts were done within the scope of their authority. The Court also held that the bank was not liable for the acts of its officers if they were done outside the scope of their authority.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Sandusky v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misreading of the contract between Sandusky and the bank. He argued that it was clear from both parties' intent at signing that they had agreed to an interest rate of 6%, not 5%. Furthermore, he noted that while there were some ambiguities in their agreement, these should have been resolved by looking to state law rather than federal common law as suggested by the majority. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a warning against allowing "the courts [to] make contracts for parties who are able to make them for themselves."