Society for Savings v. Coite was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a bank could foreclose on a mortgage without first obtaining a judgment from a court. The case was brought by the Society for Savings, a bank in Connecticut, against Coite, a mortgagor. The Society for Savings argued that it had the right to foreclose on Coite's mortgage without first obtaining a judgment from a court. The Supreme Court held that the bank did not have the right to foreclose on the mortgage without first obtaining a judgment from a court. The Court reasoned that the bank was not a court and did not have the authority to make a judgment on the matter. The Court also noted that the bank had not provided Coite with any notice of the foreclosure, which was required by Connecticut law. The Court's decision in Society for Savings v. Coite established that banks must obtain a judgment from a court before they can foreclose on a mortgage. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has become an important precedent in the area of mortgage foreclosure law.

In Society for Savings v. Coite, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could foreclose on a mortgage that had been assigned by the original mortgagor to another party without notice of such assignment being given to the bank. The majority opinion held that foreclosure was not permissible in this case because no notice of assignment had been provided and thus, there was no way for the bank to know who it should look towards as its debtor. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that banks have an obligation under common law principles of equity and good faith to protect their interests when dealing with mortgages; therefore they must take reasonable steps before granting loans or accepting assignments in order to ensure they are aware of any changes in ownership which may affect their rights over said property. He argued further that since banks are expected by society at large to act responsibly and prudently when engaging in financial transactions, they should be allowed some leeway here even if formal notification is lacking so long as it can be shown through other means (such as public records) that knowledge existed prior or contemporaneously with loan approval/assignment acceptance.