Thomas Richardson, plaintiff in error, brought a case against the City of Boston. He argued that he had been wrongfully deprived of his property without due process or compensation when the city took it for public use. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richardson and held that under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, private property cannot be taken by any state government for public use without just compensation being paid to its owner. This ruling established an important precedent regarding eminent domain law and set forth protections for individuals whose land is seized by governments for public purposes.

In the case of Thomas Richardson v. The City of Boston, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the plaintiff had been wrongfully denied his right to compensation for damages caused by an illegal act committed by the city. According to Curtis, when a municipality commits an illegal act and causes injury or damage to another party, it is liable for those damages in accordance with established principles of law. Furthermore, he noted that this principle was not only supported by common law but also recognized in many state constitutions as well as federal statutes such as the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which requires just compensation be paid whenever private property is taken for public use without due process of law. Therefore, since no legal authority existed at that time exempting municipalities from liability under these circumstances and given that Richardson had suffered losses due to their actions he should have been compensated accordingly regardless if they acted intentionally or negligently; otherwise citizens would be left unprotected against arbitrary acts committed by municipal authorities with impunity.