In County of Mobile v. Kimball, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in Alabama could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Kimball, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell through the bridge. The county argued that it was not liable because the bridge had been built by a private contractor and the county had not been negligent in its construction. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had failed to do so. The Court noted that the county had been aware of the bridge's condition and had failed to take any action to repair it. The Court also noted that the county had a duty to inspect the bridge and that it had failed to do so. The Court concluded that the county was liable for the damages caused by the bridge and ordered it to pay the plaintiff for his injuries. This case established that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge, even if the bridge was built by a private contractor.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in County of Mobile v. Kimball, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a state law which authorized counties to issue bonds for public improvements did not violate Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution because it only applied to those counties who chose to exercise their right under the statute. Furthermore, he noted that this type of legislation had been upheld by other courts as valid exercises of police power granted by states to local governments. In addition, Justice Field argued that even if there was some violation of Article I, Section 10 due to unequal taxation among different classes within a county or between different counties in Alabama (which he denied), such an infringement would still be permissible since it is within Congress' authority under Article IV, Section 3(2) "to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting . . . Property belonging to United States." Thus, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a call for reversal on behalf of the appellant and remandment back down below so they could proceed accordingly with their case against Kimball