Wheeler v. National Bank was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The case arose when the plaintiff, Wheeler, sued the National Bank of the United States for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its employees. The bank argued that it could not be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees because it was a corporation and not a natural person. 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 a corporation and, as such, was capable of committing wrongful acts. The Court further reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its employees because it had the power to control them. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the National Bank of the United States could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The Court reasoned that the bank was a corporation and, as such, was capable of committing wrongful acts. The Court also noted that the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wheeler v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a great deal of confusion for creditors. He argued that it was well-settled law that when an individual borrows money from a bank, they are liable for repayment regardless of whether or not their debt is secured by collateral. The majority had held otherwise, finding instead that if there were no security given at the time of borrowing then any subsequent security taken could not be used as evidence against them in court proceedings. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and stated his belief that such a ruling would create uncertainty among creditors who may now have difficulty determining what rights they possess over borrowers' assets should those borrowers default on their payments. Furthermore, he noted how such an outcome could potentially encourage individuals to take out loans without providing adequate security up front since they know any additional securities taken later will be unenforceable in court anyway.