In Fort Scott v. Hickman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by a defective sidewalk. The city of Fort Scott, Kansas had constructed a sidewalk that was in a state of disrepair, and a woman named Mary Hickman had tripped and fallen on the sidewalk, resulting in her injury. Hickman sued the city for damages, and the city argued that it could not be held liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in constructing the sidewalk. The Supreme Court disagreed with the city's argument and held that the city could be held liable for the damages caused by the defective sidewalk. The Court reasoned that the city had a duty to maintain the sidewalk in a safe condition, and that it had breached this duty by failing to repair the sidewalk. The Court also held that the city was liable for the damages caused by the defective sidewalk, regardless of whether it had been negligent in constructing the sidewalk. This decision established that cities can be held liable for damages caused by defective sidewalks, even if they were not negligent in constructing them.

In Fort Scott v. Hickman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority opinion held that such jurisdiction did not exist and that it would be unconstitutional for states to exercise power beyond their borders. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there is no constitutional prohibition preventing states from exercising extraterritorial powers; secondly, he asserted that Congress has granted authority to certain states under specific circumstances allowing them to do so. He concluded his dissent by stating “The Constitution does not prohibit what it does not forbid” and thus urged his colleagues in the majority opinion to reconsider their ruling as they were effectively denying rights given by Congress without any legal basis or justification for doing so.