Middleton v. Mullica Township was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a municipality could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Middleton, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge that had been built by the defendant, Mullica Township. Middleton argued that the Township was liable for his injuries because it had failed to properly maintain the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the Township was liable for Middleton's injuries. 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 noted that the Township had received funds from the state for the purpose of maintaining the bridge, and that it had failed to use those funds for that purpose. The Court's decision established that municipalities can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that municipalities have a duty to maintain public infrastructure in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Middleton v. Mullica Township, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider all of its implications. He argued that a municipality's power to tax property was limited by state laws, and any attempt to expand those powers beyond what was granted by statute would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he noted that if municipalities were allowed to levy taxes on private property without legislative authorization, it could lead to arbitrary taxation practices which would violate due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, Justice Field argued that allowing such taxation practices could also lead to an increase in public debt as local governments sought additional revenue sources for their operations. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while states have broad authority over municipal affairs they should not be able extend their taxing powers beyond what is authorized by law or else risk violating constitutional protections afforded citizens under both federal and state constitutions.