In Cromwell v. County of Sac, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to repair a bridge. The plaintiff, Cromwell, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell through the bridge due to its poor condition. The county had been aware of the bridge's condition but had failed to take any action to repair it. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for Cromwell's injuries. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that its failure to do so constituted a breach of that duty. The Court further held that the county was liable for the damages caused by its breach of duty, even though it had not been negligent in failing to repair the bridge. The Court's decision established that a county can be held liable for damages caused by its failure to repair a bridge, even if it was not negligent in failing to do so. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving similar issues.

In Cromwell v. County of Sac, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could enforce an agreement between two parties that had been made in violation of a federal statute. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction to do so, and thus dismissed the case. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust for one party to benefit from their own illegal actions while leaving another party without any remedy at all. He argued further that if Congress intended for such agreements to be unenforceable then they should have explicitly stated as much in the relevant statute instead of leaving it up to interpretation by courts or other authorities. In conclusion, he believed that since both parties were willing participants in making an agreement which violated federal law, neither should receive any advantage over the other due solely to their respective positions under different jurisdictions.