In Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a municipality could tax a savings bank located within its boundaries. The Town of Concord, New Hampshire, had imposed a tax on the Portsmouth Savings Bank, which was located within the town's boundaries. The bank argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the tax did not impair the bank's contractual obligations because it was a general tax that applied to all businesses within the town's boundaries. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all businesses within the town. The Court concluded that the tax was constitutional and that the Town of Concord had the right to impose it. The Court also noted that the tax was not excessive and did not violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution. As such, the Court held that the Town of Concord had the right to impose the tax on the Portsmouth Savings Bank.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in Town of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to precedent and would lead to a "confusion of rights." He argued that while it is true that municipalities have certain powers delegated by state law, they do not possess any inherent authority beyond those granted by statute. In this case, he noted that there were no statutes granting the town of Concord power over its banks or their assets; therefore, it could not exercise such control without violating established legal principles. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if towns had such broad powers as suggested by the majority opinion then other entities with similar interests - like creditors and shareholders - would be deprived of their rightful claims against these banks' assets. As a result, he concluded that allowing towns to interfere in bank affairs without statutory authorization would create an unjust situation where some parties are favored over others based on arbitrary distinctions between them.