In the case of Worthy v. The Commissioners, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could tax the property of a non-resident. The case involved a dispute between the Commissioners of the City of New York and William Worthy, a non-resident of the state. Worthy owned property in New York City and was assessed a tax by the Commissioners. Worthy argued that the tax was unconstitutional because it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the tax was constitutional and that the state had the right to tax the property of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not protect non-residents from taxation, and that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to raise revenue. The Court also noted that the tax was not discriminatory and that it applied equally to all non-residents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the Commissioners of the City of New York was constitutional and that the state had the right to tax the property of non-residents. The Court reasoned that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not protect non-residents from taxation, and that the state had the right to impose taxes on non-residents in order to raise revenue.

In the case of Worthy v. The Commissioners, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied existing law and failed to consider relevant facts. He noted that while it was true that Congress had authorized the construction of levees on navigable rivers, this authorization did not extend to non-navigable rivers such as those at issue here. Furthermore, even if Congress had intended for these works to be constructed on non-navigable streams, they would still have been subject to state laws governing riparian rights and navigation interests; since no such permission was obtained from Mississippi prior to construction of the levee in question, it should not be allowed under federal law either. Finally, Justice Field pointed out that there were other ways by which flood protection could have been achieved without infringing upon private property rights; thus any decision allowing for its continued existence would amount to an unjust taking without due process or compensation being provided first.