In Whitbeck v. Mercantile National Bank of Cleveland, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its employees. The plaintiff, Whitbeck, had deposited a check with the defendant bank, and the bank's employees had wrongfully converted the funds to their own use. The Court held that the bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, as the bank had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Court noted that the bank was in a better position to prevent such wrongful acts than the plaintiff, and thus should be held liable for the damages caused by its employees. The Court also held that the bank was liable for the wrongful acts of its employees even if the bank had no knowledge of the wrongful acts. This decision established that banks are liable for the wrongful acts of their employees, and must take reasonable steps to prevent such acts from occurring.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Whitbeck v. Mercantile National Bank of Cleveland, arguing that the majority had misapplied a previous Supreme Court decision to reach its conclusion. He argued that the case should have been decided on its own merits and not by relying upon an earlier ruling which was based on different facts and circumstances. Field asserted that under Ohio law, a bank's right to collect interest from customers is limited by statute and cannot be extended beyond what is allowed by law. In this case, he noted that there were no provisions in either state or federal statutes allowing for interest payments after maturity date; therefore, any such payment would be void as it exceeded statutory limits. Furthermore, Field argued that even if such payments were permissible under state laws they could still be voided due to their being contrary to public policy since they would encourage borrowers to delay repayment of loans without consequence or penalty. In conclusion Justice Field maintained his position against extending legal rights beyond those provided for in statutes and urged caution when applying precedent decisions with differing facts and circumstances than those at hand