In White v. National Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a national bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, White, sued the National Bank of the United States for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its officers. White alleged that the bank had negligently allowed its officers to issue a check on its behalf without sufficient funds to cover it. The Supreme Court held that the bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its officers, as they were acting on behalf of the bank. The Court further held that the bank was liable for the damages caused by the wrongful acts of its officers, as it had a duty to ensure that its officers acted in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the National Bank of the United States could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the bank was responsible for the acts of its officers, as they were acting on behalf of the bank, and that the bank had a duty to ensure that its officers acted in accordance with the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in White v. National Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to precedent and would have a detrimental effect on creditors' rights. He argued that Congress had not intended for national banks to be able to set off debts against deposits when it passed the National Banking Act of 1864, as this power was traditionally reserved for state-chartered banks only. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such a practice could lead to unfairness and confusion among creditors who were unaware of any debt owed by their debtor until after they had deposited money into an account held at a national bank. As such, Justice Field concluded that Congress should decide whether or not national banks should be allowed this power rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation.