West Philadelphia Bank v. Dickson was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1877. The case involved a dispute between the West Philadelphia Bank and the defendant, Dickson, over a promissory note. The bank had loaned Dickson money and he had signed a promissory note to repay the loan. Dickson failed to make the payments and the bank sued him for the amount due. The Supreme Court held that the bank was entitled to recover the amount due on the promissory note. The Court found that the note was valid and enforceable and that Dickson had failed to make the payments as agreed. The Court also held that the bank was entitled to interest on the amount due from the date of the note until the date of judgment. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that a promissory note is a valid and enforceable contract and that a party who fails to make payments as agreed is liable for the amount due plus interest. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still good law today.

In West Philadelphia Bank v. Dickson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could recover damages from an individual who had fraudulently obtained money from it by means of false pretenses. The majority opinion held that the bank could not recover such damages because there was no contract between the parties and therefore no legal basis for recovery. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that while there may have been no formal contract between the parties, a quasi-contractual relationship existed which allowed for recovery of damages on equitable grounds. He reasoned that since Dickson had knowingly taken advantage of his position to obtain money under false pretenses he should be liable to repay those funds even without an express agreement or contractual obligation being present.