In Town of Plainview v. Samuel Marshall, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a town could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The plaintiff, Samuel Marshall, was injured when his horse and wagon fell through a bridge owned by the Town of Plainview. Marshall sued the town for damages, arguing that the town was negligent in maintaining the bridge. The Supreme Court held that the town was liable for Marshall's injuries. The Court reasoned that the town had a duty to maintain the bridge in a safe condition, and that it had breached that duty by failing to do so. The Court also noted that the town had received notice of the bridge's dangerous condition, but had failed to take any action to repair it. The Court concluded that the town was liable for Marshall's injuries, and awarded him damages. This case established that towns can be held liable for damages caused by defective bridges, and that they must take reasonable steps to maintain them in a safe condition.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Town of Plainview v. Samuel Marshall, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a Texas statute and failed to consider its full context. He argued that it was clear from the language of the statute itself that it did not apply to this case as there were no "public roads" involved; rather, what was at issue here was an easement for private use over another's land. Furthermore, he noted that even if one assumed arguendo that public roads were involved, then still nothing in either state or federal law gave authority to municipalities like Plainview to levy taxes on such property without express legislative authorization from Congress or Texas legislature. Thus, Justice Field concluded by asserting his disagreement with the majority's decision and urging reversal of their judgment so as not protect citizens' rights against taxation without representation.