This Supreme Court case, The State, Ruckman Prosecutor, v. Demarest, Collector, is a case that deals with the power of taxation. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the State of New Jersey, represented by Ruckman, the prosecutor, against Demarest, the collector. The State of New Jersey argued that the collector had unlawfully collected taxes from the plaintiff, a railroad company, in excess of the amount authorized by the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of New Jersey, finding that the collector had exceeded his authority in collecting the taxes. The Court held that the collector had no authority to collect taxes in excess of the amount authorized by the state legislature, and that the collector was liable for the amount of taxes he had unlawfully collected. The Court also held that the collector was not entitled to any compensation for his services in collecting the taxes. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that the power of taxation is limited to the amount authorized by the state legislature, and that any taxes collected in excess of that amount are unlawful. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the power of taxation.

In the case of The State, Ruckman Prosecutor v. Demarest, Collector, the dissenting opinion was that a state could not tax federal bonds without violating the Constitution. The majority opinion held that states had broad taxing powers and were allowed to impose taxes on federal bonds as long as they did not interfere with their operation or purpose. However, Justice Field argued in his dissent that this interpretation would lead to an unconstitutional result because it would allow states to indirectly tax money belonging to the United States government by taxing its obligations. He reasoned that if Congress wanted states to be able to do so then it should have explicitly granted them such authority through legislation rather than relying on constitutional inference from general language about taxation power. Furthermore, he noted how allowing such taxation could create conflicts between state and federal laws which might undermine national unity and harmony among different parts of the country since each state may choose different levels of taxation for similar items like bonds issued by other governments or corporations within their jurisdiction. Ultimately Justice Field concluded that while there is no express prohibition against this type of taxation in either Article I or IV Section 2 Clause 1 (the Supremacy Clause) of the Constitution; nevertheless any attempt by a state legislature must be carefully scrutinized before being approved due its potential implications for both national sovereignty and interstate relations