In Talty v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay a note that was issued to a customer. The plaintiff, Talty, had purchased a note from the defendant, Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, and had paid the full amount of the note. However, the bank failed to pay the note when it was due. Talty then sued the bank for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for failing to pay the note. The Court reasoned that the bank had a duty to pay the note when it was due, and that the bank had breached its contract with Talty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the bank was liable for any damages that Talty suffered as a result of the breach. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for failing to pay the note when it was due, and that Talty was entitled to damages for the breach of contract.

In Talty v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds that had been deposited by an individual who had died without leaving a will or any other instructions regarding the disposition of his estate. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it was not responsible for paying out these funds because there were no clear instructions from the deceased as to how they should be distributed. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under common law principles of trust and confidence between parties involved in financial transactions such as this one, it was reasonable to expect that banks would act responsibly when dealing with customers' money; secondly, he noted that Congress had passed legislation specifically designed to protect freedmen (former slaves) against fraud and abuse by banks like Freedman's Savings and Trust Company – thus implying an obligation on behalf of those institutions towards their customers which ought not have been ignored in this case.