Branch et al. v. City of Charleston et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The plaintiffs, Branch et al., were the owners of a building that had been damaged by a defective street in the City of Charleston. They sued the city for damages, arguing that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective street. The Supreme Court held that the city was not liable for the damages caused by the defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had not been negligent in maintaining the street, and that the city had not created the defect in the street. The Court also noted that the city had not been aware of the defect in the street prior to the damage being caused. Therefore, the Court held that the city was not liable for the damages caused by the defective street.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Branch et al. v. City of Charleston et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound policy. He argued that although a municipality may be liable for its own negligence, it should not be held responsible for acts committed by private individuals or corporations over which it has no control or authority. Furthermore, he reasoned that if municipalities were held liable for such acts, they would become insurers against all losses caused by their citizens and businesses operating within their boundaries - an unreasonable burden to place on them as well as an unjust enrichment of those who suffer damages from such activities without having paid any premiums therefor. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that while cities must answer for injuries resulting from their own wrongful conduct, they should not be made responsible for wrongs done by others beyond their power to prevent or remedy them.