Humboldt Township v. Long et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a township could be held liable for damages caused by a bridge that was built by the township. The case arose when the Longs, a family living in Humboldt Township, sued the township for damages caused by a bridge that had been built by the township. The Longs argued that the bridge was negligently constructed and that it caused damage to their property. The township argued that it was not liable for the damages because it was not negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the township was liable for the damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the township had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the township was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Court reasoned that the township had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the township was liable for the damages caused by the bridge. The Court reasoned that the township had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also held that the township was liable for the damages even though it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge.

In Humboldt Township v. Long et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a township had the right to tax certain lands owned by non-residents of the state, which were located within its boundaries. The majority opinion held that such taxation was unconstitutional because it violated Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in several States." Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since these lands were not being used for any public purpose or benefit they should not be exempt from taxation; secondly, he argued that even if there was an exemption under Article IV it did not apply here as no citizen rights were being infringed upon. He concluded his dissent by stating “I cannot assent to a doctrine so subversive of local government” and thus disagreed with the majority's ruling.