Savings Bank v. Creswell was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for a customer’s negligence in failing to properly secure a loan. The case involved a loan taken out by the plaintiff, Creswell, from the defendant, Savings Bank. Creswell had taken out the loan to purchase a piece of property, but failed to secure the loan with a mortgage. When Creswell defaulted on the loan, the bank sued him for the balance. Creswell argued that the bank was negligent in not requiring him to secure the loan with a mortgage, and that the bank should be held liable for his negligence. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the bank was not liable for Creswell’s negligence. The Court held that the bank had no duty to require Creswell to secure the loan with a mortgage, and that Creswell was solely responsible for his own negligence. The Court also noted that the bank had provided Creswell with ample opportunity to secure the loan, but that Creswell had failed to do so. As a result, the Court held that the bank was not liable for Creswell’s negligence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Savings Bank v. Creswell, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the language of a contract between two parties. He argued that under ordinary rules of construction, it was clear that the contract did not provide for an interest rate beyond what was specified in its terms and conditions. Furthermore, he noted that if one party to a contract could unilaterally change its terms after execution without consent from both parties then all contracts would be rendered meaningless as they could be changed at any time by either party. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating “I cannot assent to such a doctrine” and urged reversal of the judgment below on this basis alone.