In Yeatman v. Savings Institution, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a savings institution could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The case arose when the plaintiff, Yeatman, sued the defendant, a savings institution, for damages resulting from the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court held that the savings institution could be held liable for the wrongful acts of its officers. The Court reasoned that the savings institution was responsible for the acts of its officers because it had the power to control them. The Court also noted that the savings institution had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and supervision of its officers. The Court concluded that the savings institution was liable for the wrongful acts of its officers and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. This decision established that savings institutions can be held liable for the wrongful acts of their officers.

In Yeatman v. Savings Institution, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank could be held liable for failing to pay out on an insurance policy that had been assigned to it by its owner. The majority opinion found in favor of the bank, holding that since the assignment of the policy did not include any consideration or agreement between parties, there was no legal obligation for them to honor it and they were therefore not liable. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that even without consideration or agreement between parties, if a person assigns their property rights over something such as an insurance policy then those rights should still be respected and honored by all involved parties. He further noted that while banks may have certain privileges under common law which allow them some protection when dealing with third-party assignments like these, they are also subject to certain obligations which require them to respect such assignments unless otherwise specified in writing beforehand.