Boyer v. Boyer & Others, County Commissioners is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1885. The case involved a dispute between the Boyer family and the County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland. The Boyer family owned a tract of land in the county, and the County Commissioners had granted a right-of-way to a railroad company to build a railroad across the Boyer's land. The Boyer family argued that the County Commissioners had acted beyond their authority in granting the right-of-way, and that the right-of-way was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the County Commissioners had acted within their authority in granting the right-of-way, and that the right-of-way was valid. The Court reasoned that the County Commissioners had the power to grant the right-of-way, and that the Boyer family had not shown that the Commissioners had acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The Court also held that the Boyer family was not entitled to compensation for the right-of-way, as the right-of-way was granted for a public purpose. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the County Commissioners had acted within their authority in granting the right-of-way, and that the right-of-way was valid. The Boyer family was not entitled to compensation for the right-of-way, as it was granted for a public purpose.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Boyer v. Boyer & Others, County Commissioners. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason, as it allowed a state court to interfere with an act of Congress which had been passed for the benefit of citizens who served in the Union Army during the Civil War. Justice Field noted that while states have certain powers over their own internal affairs, they cannot be used to override federal laws or acts of Congress; this is especially true when those laws are intended for public welfare purposes such as providing benefits for veterans. Furthermore, he argued that allowing states to do so would create confusion and uncertainty regarding how federal law should be interpreted and applied across different jurisdictions. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that by overturning prior decisions on similar matters and permitting state interference with congressional action meant only one thing: "that there is no security whatever against State legislation impairing rights secured by Acts of Congress."