Wood v. Guarantee Trust and Safe Deposit Company was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1921. The case involved a dispute between a bank and a customer over the ownership of a safe deposit box. The customer, Wood, had rented a safe deposit box from the bank, Guarantee Trust and Safe Deposit Company, and had placed certain items in the box. When Wood died, the bank refused to allow his heirs access to the box, claiming that it was the property of the bank. The heirs sued the bank, arguing that the items in the box belonged to Wood and that the bank had no right to deny them access. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the heirs, ruling that the items in the box belonged to Wood and that the bank had no right to deny them access. The Court held that the bank had a duty to protect the items in the box and that it had breached that duty by refusing to allow the heirs access. The Court also held that the bank had no right to claim ownership of the items in the box, as they belonged to Wood. This case established the principle that banks have a duty to protect the items in a safe deposit box and that they cannot deny access to the rightful owners of those items.

In the case of Wood v. Guarantee Trust and Safe Deposit Company, Justice Holmes delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied precedent from prior cases to reach their decision. He noted that while it was true that an individual could not be held liable for debts incurred by another person, this did not necessarily mean that they were absolved of all responsibility when it came to contracts made with third parties. In his view, if one party entered into a contract with another knowing full well what obligations would arise as a result of such an agreement then they should be held accountable for any damages caused due to their actions or negligence. Furthermore, he argued that even though there may have been some ambiguity surrounding the terms of the contract between Wood and Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Company, this did not excuse either party from fulfilling its contractual duties under said agreement.