Wells v. Supervisors is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the supervisors of a county in Mississippi and the county's tax collector, William Wells. Wells had been appointed to the position of tax collector in 1876, and he was responsible for collecting taxes from the county's citizens. In 1878, the supervisors passed a resolution that required Wells to pay a commission of five percent of the taxes he collected to the county. Wells refused to pay the commission, arguing that the resolution was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Wells, ruling that the resolution was unconstitutional. The Court held that the resolution was an attempt to impose a tax on Wells, which was prohibited by the Mississippi Constitution. The Court also held that the resolution was an attempt to interfere with the powers of the state legislature, which was also prohibited by the Mississippi Constitution. The Court concluded that the resolution was invalid and that Wells was not required to pay the commission.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wells v. Supervisors, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that a state legislature has no power to pass laws which interfere with vested rights of property or contract without due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Mississippi statute at issue in this case provided for taxation on certain lands held under trust deed from an Indian tribe; Justice Field asserted that it violated these constitutional protections because it interfered with existing contracts between private parties and imposed taxes upon them without their consent or any opportunity for them to be heard before such action was taken. Furthermore, he maintained that even if there had been some form of notice given prior to passage of the statute, its retroactive application would still have been unconstitutional since it deprived individuals who had acquired title under valid deeds from being able to enjoy those titles free from interference by legislative acts passed after they were obtained. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that while states may impose reasonable regulations on land owned within their borders so long as they do not infringe upon vested rights or deprive individuals of life liberty or property without due process of law; however this particular statute did just that and should therefore be declared invalid.