Transportation Company v. Parkersburg was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of taxation. The case involved a dispute between the City of Parkersburg, West Virginia and the Parkersburg and Ohio River Transportation Company. The City of Parkersburg had imposed a tax on the company's property, which the company argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on the company's property, and the Constitution only allowed for indirect taxes. The Court reasoned that the tax was a direct tax because it was imposed on the company's property, and not on the company's income or profits. The Court also held that the tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in accordance with the Constitution. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states in order to be constitutional. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still used today to determine the constitutionality of taxes.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Transportation Company v. Parkersburg, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a municipality cannot be held liable for damages caused by its failure to perform a duty imposed upon it by state law unless there is some form of negligence or fault on its part. The Court had previously held in similar cases that municipalities are not liable for such damages unless they have acted negligently or with malice, and Justice Field believed this should apply here as well. Furthermore, he noted that even if the city were found negligent in failing to maintain adequate drainage systems, it could only be held responsible for those injuries which occurred within its jurisdiction; any damage occurring outside of Parkersburg’s boundaries would remain uncompensated under the majority’s ruling. In conclusion, Justice Field argued strongly against holding cities strictly liable without proof of negligence or fault on their part and urged his colleagues to reconsider their position before allowing such injustice into our legal system.