Township of Elmwood v. Marcy was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Marcy, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the Township of Elmwood. Marcy sued the Township for damages, arguing that the Township was liable for the defective bridge. The Supreme Court held that the Township was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the Township had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached that duty by failing to repair the bridge. The Court also noted that the Township had received notice of the bridge's condition, and had failed to take any action to repair it. As a result, the Court held that the Township was liable for Marcy's damages. The decision in Township of Elmwood v. Marcy established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that municipalities have a duty to maintain public infrastructure in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Township of Elmwood v. Marcy, arguing that the majority had failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law: that an individual cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation. He argued that this was especially true when it came to public lands, as they are held by individuals for their own benefit and enjoyment. The majority's decision disregarded this principle by allowing the township to take possession of land owned by Marcy without providing any compensation or even attempting to ascertain its value. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that while there may have been some ambiguity in the language used in granting title over these lands, such ambiguities should always be resolved against those who seek to deprive another person from what is rightfully theirs - which was not done here. In conclusion, he argued strongly against depriving someone from their property rights without due process or just compensation and urged his colleagues on the Court to reconsider their ruling accordingly.