The Town of Pawlet v. Daniel Clark and Others was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1815. The town had brought an action against several individuals for damages caused to their property during the Revolutionary War, claiming that they were responsible for allowing British troops to pass through and damage it. The defendants argued that they had no control over the actions of those troops, as they were under orders from General Burgoyne at the time. After hearing both sides' arguments, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Pawlet on all counts, finding that although there may have been some degree of coercion involved with regards to allowing passage through their land, this did not absolve them from responsibility for any resulting damages done by those forces while passing through or staying on their property. This ruling established precedent which has since been used in other cases involving similar circumstances where one party is held liable despite being coerced into taking certain actions due to external factors beyond their control.

In the case of Town of Pawlet v. Daniel Clark, and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a town had authority to tax non-residents for property they owned within its boundaries. The majority opinion found that towns did not have such authority; however, Justice Story dissented from this decision. He argued that it would be unfair if residents were taxed while non-residents were exempt from taxation on their property in the same town. Furthermore, he stated that allowing towns to impose taxes on non-resident owners would help them raise funds needed for public works projects and other necessary expenses without having to rely solely upon voluntary contributions or state aid. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that towns should have some power over taxing those who own land within their borders but do not reside there permanently.