In the case of Dobbins v. The Commissioners of Erie County, Plaintiff in Error Daniel Dobbins argued that he was entitled to a refund for taxes paid on land owned by him and his wife which had been erroneously assessed as part of an adjoining lot. He claimed that this assessment was illegal because it violated the state constitution's prohibition against double taxation. The Supreme Court disagreed with Dobbins' argument, ruling that since he failed to file a timely appeal within the statutory period, his claim for relief from double taxation must be denied. Furthermore, they held that even if there had been an error in assessing the tax rate or amount due on his property, such errors could not be corrected after expiration of the statutory period without violating constitutional principles prohibiting retrospective legislation and impairing vested rights acquired under existing laws. Thus, despite recognizing potential injustice in denying relief to taxpayers who have suffered from erroneous assessments or other irregularities committed by public officers charged with collecting taxes due to their respective governments; nevertheless justice requires strict adherence to established rules governing appeals and remedies available when those rules are disregarded or ignored altogether

In the case of Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, the plaintiff argued that a tax imposed by the county was unconstitutional and violated his rights as an American citizen. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, holding that it was within their power to impose such taxes for public purposes and that they had not exceeded their authority in doing so. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that while taxation is necessary for government operations, it must be done fairly and without infringing on individual rights; he believed this particular tax did just that since its purpose was to fund projects which would benefit only certain individuals or groups rather than all citizens equally. He further stated there should have been more evidence presented before imposing such a tax in order to ensure fairness among taxpayers. Ultimately, Justice McLean's dissent failed to sway the majority opinion but serves as an important reminder of how taxation can affect individual freedoms if not properly regulated by law.