In New Orleans Board of Liquidation v. Hart, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the City of New Orleans had the right to collect taxes from a private corporation. The City of New Orleans had issued bonds to the Hart family in 1868, and the Hart family had agreed to pay taxes on the bonds. However, the City of New Orleans had not collected the taxes for several years, and the Hart family argued that the City had no right to collect the taxes. The Supreme Court held that the City of New Orleans had the right to collect the taxes. The Court reasoned that the City had the right to collect taxes on the bonds because the Hart family had agreed to pay the taxes when they purchased the bonds. The Court also noted that the City had the right to collect taxes on the bonds because the Hart family had not paid the taxes for several years. The Court concluded that the City of New Orleans had the right to collect the taxes from the Hart family. The Court held that the City had the right to collect the taxes because the Hart family had agreed to pay the taxes when they purchased the bonds, and because the Hart family had not paid the taxes for several years.

In the case of New Orleans Board of Liquidation v. Hart, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could be held liable for debts incurred by its predecessor government before it joined the Union. The majority opinion found that states were not responsible for such debts and thus granted immunity from suit in this instance. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that when a state joins the Union, it does so with all its obligations intact; therefore any debt contracted prior to joining should still be enforceable against them as if they had never left their former status as an independent nation or territory. Furthermore, he noted that Congress has previously recognized these pre-statehood debts and provided funds to pay them off which indicated an implicit recognition of their validity under federal law. Finally, Justice Field pointed out that allowing states to repudiate such contracts would create instability in financial markets since creditors would no longer have faith in contractual agreements made with governments who may later become part of another sovereign entity without being held accountable for those commitments