This case was a dispute between the relators, Given and Others, and the Wright Collector. The relators were a group of individuals who had been assessed taxes by the Collector. The relators argued that the Collector had no authority to assess the taxes, and that the assessment was therefore invalid. The Supreme Court held that the Collector had the authority to assess the taxes, and that the assessment was valid. The Court reasoned that the Collector was acting within his authority as a public officer, and that the assessment was made in accordance with the laws of the state. The Court also noted that the relators had failed to provide any evidence that the assessment was invalid. The Court concluded that the Collector had the authority to assess the taxes, and that the assessment was valid. The Court therefore affirmed the decision of the lower court.

In Givens & Others Relators v. Wright Collector, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax collector could be held liable for damages when he collected taxes that were later found to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion of the court found in favor of the tax collector and held that he should not be liable for collecting an unconstitutional tax because it was his duty as a public official to collect taxes regardless of their constitutionality. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while it is true that public officials are obligated by law to collect taxes, they must also act responsibly and with due care when doing so. He reasoned that if a public official collects an unconstitutional tax without making any effort to determine its legality beforehand, then they can still be held accountable for their actions since such negligence would constitute malpractice on their part.