In the case of Ogden City v. Armstrong (1897), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Armstrong, upholding his right to damages from Ogden City for a breach of contract. The dispute arose when Ogden City failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide water supply as agreed upon with Armstrong and other citizens. Despite having paid their dues, these citizens were left without an adequate water supply due to the city's negligence in maintaining and operating its waterworks system efficiently. The court held that municipalities engaged in commercial activities could be sued for damages if they fail to meet their obligations under a contract just like any private corporation or individual would be liable under similar circumstances. This ruling established an important precedent regarding municipal liability, emphasizing that cities cannot evade responsibility for fulfilling contractual duties by invoking sovereign immunity.

In the dissenting opinion for Ogden City v. Armstrong, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity. He contended that it was unjust to allow Ogden City to avoid paying its debts by claiming an exemption under Utah's constitution, which had not been in effect when the bonds were issued or defaulted on. According to Justice Harlan, this ruling effectively allowed states and municipalities to evade their financial obligations at will, undermining public confidence in such entities' creditworthiness. Furthermore, he believed it violated creditors' rights under contracts clause of U.S Constitution as they could no longer rely on terms agreed upon at time of lending because laws could be changed retroactively. In his view, if a state or municipality issues bonds under certain conditions and then defaults on them due to changes in its own laws or constitution after-the-fact should still be held accountable for those debts.