The City v. Lamson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The case arose when a man named Lamson was injured while riding his horse on a street in the city of Boston. Lamson sued the city for damages, claiming that the street was in a state of disrepair and that the city was negligent in maintaining it. The Supreme Court held that the city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the streets in a safe condition and that it had breached this duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the city was liable for Lamson's injuries, even though the city had not been aware of the defect in the street. The Court's decision in The City v. Lamson established the principle that a city can be held liable for damages caused by a defective street. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that a city has a duty to maintain its streets in a safe condition.

In the case of The City v. Lamson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited any person from selling or offering for sale goods on Sunday was constitutional. Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the ordinance violated both state and federal law. He noted that while states have authority to regulate certain activities within their borders, they cannot interfere with citizens' rights under either state or federal constitutions without due process of law. Furthermore, he argued that this particular ordinance did not meet those requirements because it imposed an unreasonable restriction on individuals' right to engage in commerce and infringe upon their freedom of religion by forcing them to observe one day as holy rather than another. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that such ordinances were unconstitutional and should be struck down accordingly.