In the 1891 case of Ferry v. King County, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property taxation in Washington state. The plaintiff, Eliza P. Ferry, was the widow and executrix of Elisha P. Ferry's estate who had been governor of Washington Territory and later became first governor when it achieved statehood in 1889. She argued that certain bonds owned by her late husband were exempt from taxation under territorial law at the time they were issued (1875-1883). However, after becoming a state in 1889, Washington imposed taxes on these bonds which she refused to pay arguing their tax-exempt status should be honored despite change in jurisdictional status. The court ruled against Mrs.Ferry stating that while territories may have different laws than states due to their unique relationship with federal government; once achieving statehood those exemptions do not necessarily carry forward unless specifically preserved during transition process or recognized under new State constitution or laws - neither condition being met here. This ruling established an important precedent regarding how changes from territorial to state status can affect legal rights and obligations including financial ones like tax liability.

In the dissenting opinion for Ferry v. King County, Justice Field disagreed with the majority's decision that a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge it had not constructed or agreed to maintain. He argued that under Washington law, counties were only responsible for bridges they built or contracted to keep in repair. In this case, he noted, there was no evidence showing King County had undertaken such an obligation regarding the bridge in question. Therefore, he believed it was wrong to hold the county accountable based on its general duty of care over public highways and bridges within its jurisdiction without specific proof of negligence or breach of contract.