In County of Daviess v. Huidekoper, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Huidekoper, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. The county argued that it was not liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached this duty by failing to inspect the bridge and repair any defects. The Court also noted that the county had received notice of the defect prior to the accident, but had failed to take any action to remedy the situation. The Court concluded that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge, and ordered it to pay Huidekoper for his injuries. This case established the principle that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if it was not negligent in constructing the bridge.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in County of Daviess v. Huidekoper, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to absurd results. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether one party is a county or not. Furthermore, he noted that if counties were allowed to avoid contracts they had entered into with private citizens simply because they are governmental entities, it would create an unfair advantage for them over other contracting parties and could potentially lead to abuse by those in power. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing counties such as Daviess County from avoiding their contractual obligations could have far-reaching implications on public policy and set dangerous precedents for future cases involving similar issues.