In Scudder v. Union National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for a check that was issued without the knowledge or consent of the payee. The case involved a check issued by the Union National Bank of Chicago to the plaintiff, Scudder, without his knowledge or consent. The check was then presented to the bank for payment and the bank paid it. The Court held that the bank was liable for the payment of the check, even though it was issued without the knowledge or consent of the payee. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the issuance of checks and that it had failed to do so in this case. The Court also noted that the bank had failed to take any steps to verify the identity of the payee before issuing the check. The Court concluded that the bank was liable for the payment of the check and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of the check from the bank. This decision established the principle that banks are liable for the payment of checks issued without the knowledge or consent of the payee.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in SCUDDER v. UNION NATIONAL BANK, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written unless it is illegal or against public policy, which he did not believe was applicable in this case. Furthermore, he noted that the Bank had already accepted payments from Scudder on his debt and thus could not now claim they were entitled to more money than what had been agreed upon originally. In addition, Justice Field pointed out that if Scudder had known of any additional interest due at the time of entering into the agreement with Union National Bank then he would have taken steps to protect himself by including language specifying such terms in their original agreement; however since no such language existed it seemed clear to him that there was no intention for either party to pay additional interest beyond what was specified initially. Therefore Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating emphatically that "the judgment below should be affirmed."