In Brown v. County of Buena Vista, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Brown, 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 money from the state to build and maintain the bridge, and that it had a duty to use this money to ensure the safety of the bridge. The Court concluded that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge and ordered it to pay Brown for his injuries. This case established that counties can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges that they have built and maintained.

Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. County of Buena Vista, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that under existing laws, counties had no authority to levy taxes on real estate owned by individuals or corporations for any purpose other than county purposes. Furthermore, he noted that if such taxation were allowed it would be unconstitutional as it would amount to double taxation - once at the state level and again at the county level - which is prohibited by both federal and state constitutions. Additionally, Justice Field argued that allowing this type of taxation could lead to an unlimited number of local levies being imposed upon property owners without their consent or approval from higher authorities; thus violating individual rights protected by due process clauses found in both federal and state constitutions. Finally, he concluded his dissent with a warning about how allowing such taxing powers could result in "the destruction of private property" if left unchecked.