In the case of Lynde v. The County, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Lynde, had been injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the county. The county argued that it was not liable for the damages because it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition and that it had breached this duty by failing to inspect the bridge and repair any defects. The Court also noted that the county had been aware of the defect in the bridge and had failed to take any action to remedy the situation. The Court concluded that the county was liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge and ordered the county to pay Lynde for his injuries. This case established the principle that a county can be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge if it has been negligent in its duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in the case of Lynde v. The County, arguing that a state statute which allowed for county commissioners to assess taxes on property owners was unconstitutional. He argued that this violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which states "No State shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." In his view, allowing county commissioners to tax people without their consent would be an impairment on contract rights and thus violate this clause. Furthermore he argued that it was not within Congress' power to grant such authority as taxation is a right reserved by each individual state under Amendment X. As such Justice Field concluded that while it may have been beneficial for counties to have more autonomy when assessing taxes they must do so within constitutional limits and could not infringe upon individuals' rights in doing so.