Larned v. Burlington was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could tax the income of a non-resident. The plaintiff, Larned, was a non-resident of the state of Vermont who owned property in the state. He argued that the state's taxation of his income was unconstitutional because it violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the state had the right to tax the income of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the taxation of non-residents was necessary to ensure that the state could raise revenue to fund its operations. The Court also noted that the taxation of non-residents was not an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The Court concluded that the taxation of non-residents was a valid exercise of the state's power to tax. As a result, the Court upheld the state's taxation of Larned's income.

In the case of Larned v. Burlington, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties for the sale of goods could be enforced when one party had already received payment from another source. The majority opinion held that such contracts were enforceable and that if one party had been paid by someone else, they must still fulfill their obligations under the contract. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that it would be unjust to require performance in such circumstances because it would amount to double recovery for one side while leaving nothing for the other side who has performed their part of the agreement. He further reasoned that since both sides are equally bound by law to perform according to an agreement once made, then neither should benefit more than what is provided in said agreement or suffer any detriment due solely to outside influences beyond either's control.