Blair v. Cuming County was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Blair, was injured when his wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. The county argued that it was not liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached this duty by failing to inspect the bridge and repair any defects. The Court also noted that the county had received notice of the defect prior to the accident and had failed to take any action to remedy the situation. The Court concluded that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the county. This case established the principle that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge if it has failed to inspect and repair the bridge in a timely manner.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Blair v. Cuming County, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for the taxation of state bonds and other securities held by individuals. He argued that such an act was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any laws impairing contracts or obligations. Furthermore, he argued that this law would interfere with state sovereignty as it allowed federal authorities to impose taxes on something over which they had no jurisdiction—state-issued bonds and securities. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress could tax these items then there would be nothing preventing them from taxing anything else within a state's borders without its consent or approval.