Township of Burlington v. Beasley is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between the Township of Burlington and a man named Beasley over a piece of land. Beasley had purchased the land from the Township in 1867, but the Township later attempted to reclaim the land, claiming that the sale was invalid because it had not been approved by the Township's Board of Supervisors. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Beasley, finding that the Township had no right to reclaim the land. The Court held that the Township had no authority to invalidate the sale, as it had been approved by the Township's Board of Auditors, which had the power to approve such sales. The Court also held that the Township had failed to provide Beasley with proper notice of the attempted reclamation, and that Beasley had acted in good faith in purchasing the land. The Court's decision in this case established that a municipality cannot invalidate a sale of land that has been approved by its Board of Auditors, and that proper notice must be given to the purchaser before any attempt to reclaim the land is made. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over land sales.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Township of Burlington v. Beasley, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a municipality has no power to tax private property for public purposes without express authority from either state or federal law. The majority had held that municipalities have inherent powers to levy taxes on private property when necessary for public use, but Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of municipal powers as it would allow them too much discretion over taxation matters which should be left up to the legislature alone. Furthermore, he noted that there were several cases where courts had previously ruled against municipalities attempting such taxation schemes and thus found it difficult to accept the majority's ruling in this case as being consistent with established law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that if a municipality wished to impose taxes on private property then they must do so through an act of legislation rather than relying upon their own assumed authority under common law principles.