Charles H. Carroll brought a case against Orrin Safford, the treasurer of Genesee County in Michigan. The dispute was over whether or not the county had to pay interest on bonds that were issued by the state and given to Carroll as part payment for his services as an Indian agent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carroll, finding that he was entitled to receive interest payments from the county since it had received money from other sources which could be used for this purpose. Furthermore, they found that if there were any doubts about how much money should be paid out then those doubts should have been resolved before issuing bonds without providing for such payments. This ruling established precedent regarding when states must pay interest on their debt obligations and set important limits on governments' ability to issue debt without making provisions for repayment with interest

In the case of Charles H. Carroll v. Orrin Safford, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for certain taxes to be collected from non-residents who owned property in Michigan violated the Constitution's Contract Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause and thus upheld the law as constitutional. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling and argued that while states have broad powers when it comes to taxation, they must still abide by their contractual obligations with citizens or other entities within their borders. He further maintained that since Michigan had already entered into contracts with non-resident landowners prior to enacting its tax laws, those contracts should remain valid even if new legislation is passed which affects them adversely; otherwise such action would amount to an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights under Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution.