In the case of Chicago City vs. Robbins, the Supreme Court ruled that a city's power to tax is limited by its charter and cannot be used to raise revenue beyond what was authorized in it. The court held that when a municipality attempts to impose taxes for purposes not specified in its charter, such as raising funds for public improvements or other general purposes, those taxes are invalid and unenforceable. This ruling established an important precedent limiting municipal taxation powers and protecting citizens from arbitrary taxation without representation or authorization from their local government.

In the case of Chicago City vs. Robbins, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to remove obstructions from a navigable river. The majority opinion found that cities were not liable because they did not have any legal obligation to maintain such rivers and thus could not be held responsible for any resulting damage. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that cities should indeed be held accountable when their failure to act causes harm or injury to another party. He reasoned that since it is within the power of municipalities to take action on matters like these, they should also bear responsibility if something goes wrong as a result of their inaction or negligence. Furthermore, he argued that allowing them immunity would create an unfair situation where those who are injured due to municipal neglect would have no recourse against those responsible for causing them harm.