Stephens v. Monongahela Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Stephens, and the defendant, Monongahela Bank. Stephens had deposited money with the bank, and the bank's employees had misappropriated the funds. Stephens sued the bank for the misappropriation of his funds. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its employees because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the misappropriation of funds because it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the management of its funds. The Court's decision in Stephens v. Monongahela Bank established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their employees. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of banking law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stephens v. Monongahela Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to unjust results. He argued that under existing law, a bank could not be held liable for failing to pay out funds on an unauthorized check unless it had been negligent or careless in its handling of the transaction. The majority opinion found otherwise, holding that banks were responsible for any losses resulting from their failure to properly investigate checks before paying them out. Justice Field disagreed with this conclusion and noted that such a rule would place an unreasonable burden on banks by requiring them to act as guarantors against all potential frauds committed by customers who presented forged checks or other fraudulent documents. He further argued that if banks were required to bear such responsibility without fault on their part, they might become unwilling participants in commercial transactions due to fear of liability exposure and thus impede economic progress rather than facilitate it as intended by Congress when enacting relevant banking laws.