This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company. The Collector had assessed a tax on the company's income from the sale of bonds, but the company refused to pay the tax, arguing that the bonds were not taxable. The Collector then sued the company for the unpaid taxes. The Supreme Court held that the bonds were taxable, and that the Collector was entitled to the unpaid taxes. The Court reasoned that the bonds were a form of income, and that the company had received a benefit from the sale of the bonds. Therefore, the Court concluded that the bonds were taxable and that the Collector was entitled to the unpaid taxes. The Court also held that the Collector was entitled to interest on the unpaid taxes, as the company had failed to pay the taxes in a timely manner. The Court reasoned that the company had received a benefit from the sale of the bonds, and that the Collector was entitled to interest on the unpaid taxes as a result. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the bonds were taxable, and that the Collector was entitled to the unpaid taxes and interest on the unpaid taxes.

In Grant, Collector v. Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a tax imposed by Congress on railroad companies was constitutional or not. The majority opinion held that the tax did not violate any of the provisions of either the Constitution or statutes passed by Congress. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that it violated both Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution as well as several other laws passed by Congress which limited taxation to certain specific purposes only. He argued that since this particular tax had no such purpose specified in its enactment then it should be declared unconstitutional and invalidated accordingly.