In Bridge Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the construction of a bridge over a navigable river. The Bridge Company had built a bridge over the Mississippi River, and the United States had subsequently built a dam upstream of the bridge, which caused the river to rise and flood the bridge. The Bridge Company argued that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the flooding, as the dam had been built without their consent. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the flooding. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to build the dam, as it was a navigable river and the United States had the right to regulate the navigation of the river. Furthermore, the Court held that the United States had not acted negligently in building the dam, as it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the bridge would not be damaged. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the flooding of the bridge, as it had the right to regulate the navigation of the river and had not acted negligently in building the dam.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bridge Company v. United States, arguing that the Court should have found for the plaintiff. He argued that Congress had not intended to impose a tax on bridge companies when it passed an act authorizing them to collect tolls from travelers crossing their bridges. The majority of justices held that Congress did intend such a tax and thus ruled against the plaintiff, but Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of Congressional intent. He noted that if Congress had wanted to levy taxes on bridge companies, they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation as was done here by the majority opinion. Furthermore, he argued that since no other court had ever imposed such a tax before this case arose, there was no precedent for doing so now either; instead he suggested allowing states or local governments who wished to do so could pass laws imposing taxes upon bridge companies within their jurisdictions without relying on federal law or authority in order to do so.