In Whitney v. First National Bank of Brattleboro, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Whitney, sued the bank for damages resulting from the bank's officers' misappropriation of funds. 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 because the officers were acting within the scope of their authority as agents of the bank. The Court further held that the bank was liable for the acts of its officers even if the bank was unaware of the wrongful acts. The Court's decision in Whitney v. First National Bank of Brattleboro established that banks can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their officers. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of corporate law.

In Whitney v. First National Bank of Brattleboro, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out funds from an account that had been frozen due to a dispute between two parties. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that it did not have any legal obligation to release funds without first obtaining court approval or consent from both parties involved in the dispute. Justice Harlan dissented and argued that banks should be held responsible for their actions when they fail to act on behalf of their customers’ interests. He argued that if banks are allowed such broad discretion over customer accounts, then customers will no longer trust them with their money and business transactions will suffer as a result. Furthermore, he noted that this decision would lead to confusion among courts trying similar cases since there is no clear standard set forth by which banks must abide when dealing with disputes between customers involving frozen accounts.