In Cashman v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, & Others, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a canal company was liable for damages caused by its negligence. The plaintiff, Cashman, had been injured when a bridge owned by the canal company collapsed. The canal company argued that it was not liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in the construction or maintenance of the bridge. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the canal company was liable for the damages. The Court reasoned that the canal company had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also noted that the canal company had been aware of the danger posed by the bridge and had failed to take any action to address it. As a result, the Court held that the canal company was liable for the damages caused by its negligence.

In the case of Cashman v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Company, et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a certain canal company had been lawfully incorporated and if it could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence. The majority opinion found that the incorporation was valid and that the company could be held liable for any damages resulting from its negligence. Justice Field dissented, arguing that there were several irregularities in how this particular corporation had been formed which made it invalid under California law at the time of formation. He argued further that since these irregularities existed prior to any damage being done by their negligence, they should not be allowed to benefit from them now when trying to avoid liability for those same actions.