In the case of Thomas Richardson v. The City of Boston, the plaintiff argued that he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned for a debt owed to the city. He claimed that his arrest violated both state law and constitutional protections against imprisonment for debt. The Supreme Court disagreed with Richardson's argument, ruling in favor of the city on grounds that it had acted within its legal authority when arresting him. Furthermore, they ruled that since no federal statute or constitutional provision prohibited such arrests at this time, there was no basis upon which to grant relief from imprisonment for debt in this instance. Ultimately, Richardson lost his case as the court found in favor of Boston's right to imprison him over an unpaid debt obligation

In the case of Thomas Richardson v. The City of Boston, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city could be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in maintaining a public street. Justice Swayne wrote an opinion dissenting from the majority's decision that cities were not liable for such damages. He argued that it would be unjust and oppressive to deny citizens any remedy against municipalities when their property is damaged due to municipal negligence or carelessness. Furthermore, he noted that if cities are allowed to escape liability even when they have been negligent in performing their duties, then this will encourage them to neglect those duties without fear of consequence or accountability. Ultimately, Justice Swayne concluded that allowing municipalities immunity from tort liability would lead only to injustice and oppression towards citizens who suffer losses as a result of municipal negligence or carelessness; thus he dissented from the majority's ruling on this issue and advocated instead for holding cities accountable whenever they fail in their duty toward citizens whose property has been damaged due to municipal negligence or carelessness.