In United States v. County of Macon, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in the state of Georgia was liable for a debt incurred by the county in the form of bonds issued to finance a railroad. The Court held that the county was liable for the debt, as the bonds were issued with the county's authority and the county was responsible for the debt. The case arose when the county issued bonds to finance the construction of a railroad. The bonds were issued with the county's authority, and the county was responsible for the debt. The bonds were sold to investors, and the proceeds were used to finance the construction of the railroad. However, the railroad was never completed, and the investors were unable to collect on the bonds. The United States then sued the county, seeking to recover the debt. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the debt, as the bonds were issued with the county's authority and the county was responsible for the debt. The Court noted that the county had the power to issue bonds and was responsible for the debt, and that the investors had a right to expect that the county would fulfill its obligations. The Court also noted that the county had not taken any steps to repudiate the bonds or to otherwise avoid liability for the debt. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the county was liable for the debt, and the United States was entitled to recover the debt from the county.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. County of Macon, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of a statute passed by Congress and thus incorrectly decided against the government's claim for payment. He argued that when Congress passed an act authorizing payments to be made from public lands, it intended those payments to cover all expenses incurred in surveying such lands - including compensation for surveyors employed by local governments. The majority opinion held otherwise, finding instead that only direct costs paid out-of-pocket could be recovered under this particular statute; however, Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and maintained that any reasonable construction of Congressional intent should include reimbursement for indirect costs as well. In his view, allowing counties to recover these indirect costs would not only benefit them financially but also encourage more efficient management of public land surveys since they would no longer have to bear so much financial burden themselves.