Goodrich v. The City was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1866. The case involved a dispute between the City of New York and a man named William Goodrich. Goodrich had been hired by the City to construct a sewer system in the city. After the work was completed, the City refused to pay Goodrich the full amount that he was owed. Goodrich then sued the City for the unpaid wages. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Goodrich. The Court held that the City was obligated to pay Goodrich the full amount that he was owed. The Court reasoned that the City had entered into a contract with Goodrich and was therefore obligated to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also held that the City was not allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract without Goodrich's consent. The decision in Goodrich v. The City was significant because it established that the City was obligated to fulfill its contractual obligations. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contract disputes between municipalities and private parties.

In Goodrich v. The City, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that required all persons who owned or kept any dog within the city limits to pay an annual tax of two dollars for each such animal was constitutional. Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that it violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that since dogs are personal property, they should be taxed like other forms of personal property; however, he noted that there were no provisions in place which would ensure uniformity among taxpayers with regard to taxation on their dogs. Furthermore, he argued that taxing only those who own or keep a dog is arbitrary and unreasonable as it does not take into account factors such as size or breed when determining how much tax must be paid by owners/keepers of these animals. Finally, Field asserted that if cities have authority to impose taxes on certain kinds of private property without providing adequate safeguards against unequal taxation then citizens’ rights could easily be abused by local governments at will.