Wilson v. City Bank is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1873. The case involved a dispute between the City Bank of New York and the estate of William Wilson, a deceased stockholder. The bank had issued a certificate of stock to Wilson, but the certificate was never delivered to him. After Wilson's death, his estate sued the bank for the value of the stock. The Supreme Court held that the bank was liable for the value of the stock, even though the certificate was never delivered to Wilson. The Court reasoned that the bank had issued the certificate and was therefore obligated to pay the value of the stock to Wilson's estate. The Court also held that the bank was not entitled to any setoff or counterclaims against the estate, as the bank had not taken any action to protect its interests prior to Wilson's death. The Court's decision in Wilson v. City Bank established that a bank is liable for the value of a stock certificate that it has issued, even if the certificate is never delivered to the stockholder. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the rights of stockholders and the obligations of banks.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wilson v. City Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established principles of equity and justice. He argued that a contract should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. The contract between Wilson and City Bank provided for an extension of time on payment if certain conditions were met; however, these conditions had not been fulfilled when the bank sued for nonpayment. Justice Field believed this constituted a breach of contract by City Bank and thus they could not recover any damages from Wilson as he had done nothing wrong under their agreement. Furthermore, he argued that even if there had been some kind of mistake made by either party regarding performance or payment due dates, it would have still been up to them to resolve such issues without involving courts since they are not equipped with sufficient knowledge about contracts' details nor do they possess authority over parties' intentions when entering into agreements like this one. Therefore, Justice Field concluded his dissent stating that enforcing contracts based solely on their literal language is essential in order for businesses (and individuals) alike to trust each other's promises and fulfill obligations accordingly - something which can only happen through mutual respect rather than legal intervention