In Wooden-Ware Company v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the destruction of a patent-protected product. The Wooden-Ware Company had patented a type of woodenware, which was destroyed by the United States during the Civil War. The company sued the United States for damages, claiming that the destruction of its product was a violation of its patent rights. The Supreme Court held that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the destruction of the Wooden-Ware Company's product. The Court reasoned that the destruction of the product was a violation of the company's patent rights, and that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the violation. The Court also held that the United States was not immune from liability for patent infringement, and that the company was entitled to damages for the destruction of its product. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was liable for damages caused by the destruction of the Wooden-Ware Company's patent-protected product. The Court reasoned that the destruction of the product was a violation of the company's patent rights, and that the United States was liable for the damages caused by the violation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wooden-Ware Company v. United States, arguing that the Court should have held that a tax imposed by Congress on manufacturers of wooden-ware was unconstitutional. He argued that this tax violated the Constitution because it was not apportioned among states according to population as required by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if such taxes were allowed under certain circumstances, they must still be uniform throughout all states and territories; however, this particular tax did not meet these requirements since it exempted some states from taxation while imposing higher rates on others. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that Congress had exceeded its authority in enacting this law and thus rendered it invalid and unenforceable.