In the 1901 case of Goodrich v. Detroit, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over taxation and property rights in Michigan. The city of Detroit had levied taxes on certain properties owned by Benjamin F.H. Goodrich, who contested this action as unlawful under state law which exempted his properties from such taxations due to their use for public purposes (as docks). However, the court ruled against Goodrich, upholding that while some parts of his property were indeed used for public purposes and thus could be exempted from taxation under state law; other portions not directly involved in these activities did not qualify for exemption and were therefore subject to municipal taxation laws. This decision underscored that exemptions from local taxes based on usage must be strictly construed with any doubts resolved in favor of taxing authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Goodrich v. Detroit, it was argued that the city of Detroit had no right to take over a privately-owned water company without providing just compensation. The justice believed that this action violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits government from taking private property for public use without fair payment. He contended that while cities have a right to provide essential services like water supply, they must respect and uphold individual property rights in doing so. This includes paying market value when acquiring private assets for public use or benefit. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority ruling allowing Detroit to seize control of a privately owned waterworks system without compensating its owners adequately.