Folsom v. Ninety Six
Citations
- 159 U.S. 611
- 16 S. Ct. 174
- 40 L. Ed. 278
- 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2329
Syllabus
<p>When a township has been created by law as a territorial division of a State, with no express grant of corporate powers, aud with no definition or restriction of the purposes for which it is created, it is within the power of the legislature, at any time, to.declare it to be a corporation, and to confer upon it such corporate powers, appropriate to be vested in a territorial corporation for the benefit of its inhabitants, as the legislature may think fit.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Floyd v. Perrin, 30 So. Car. l, the statute of South Carolina of December 24,-1885, which authorized townships (already defined by names and boundaries) to subscribe for stock in a railroad company, and county officials to issue bonds accordingly in their behalf, and to assess and levy taxes upon the property in the township for the payment thereof, and declared the townships to be bodies politic, and corporate for the purposes of this act, with the necessary powers to carry out its provisions, ' and with rights and liabilities in respect to any causes of action growing out of its provisions, must be held by the courts of the United States, as to bonds issued and purchased in good faith before that decision, to be consistent with art. 9, sect. 8, of the constitution of South Carolina, authorizing the corporate authorities of townships to be vested with power to assess and collect taxes “ for corporate purposes.”</p>
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court· 1916-02-28· cited 1,199×
- Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co.Supreme Court· 1910-01-03· cited 248×
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 149×
- Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co.Supreme Court· 1915-01-05· cited 81×
- Lancey v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1896-06-18· cited 53×
- Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. JonesSupreme Court· 1904-04-04· cited 49×
- Graham v. FolsomSupreme Court· 1906-01-08· cited 40×
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co. v. Electrical Installation Co.Supreme Court· 1914-06-22· cited 26×
- Mothersead v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Eighth Circuit· 1927-10-28· cited 18×
- Board of Education of Town of Carmen, Okl. v. JamesTenth Circuit· 1931-03-30· cited 16×
- Andrews v. National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd.Seventh Circuit· 1896-10-05· cited 15×
- Turner v. Wilkes County CommissionersSupreme Court· 1899-03-20· cited 10×
- Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co.Fourth Circuit· 1910-05-20· cited 8×
- Board of Com'rs of Onslow County v. TollmanFourth Circuit· 1906-05-01· cited 8×
- City of Clinton, ex rel. Schuetter v. First Nat. BankW.D. Oklahoma· 1941-07-18· cited 8×
- Folsom v. Ninety SixSupreme Court· 1895-11-18· cited 6×
- Perry v. Town of SamsonM.D. Alabama· 1926-02-22· cited 5×
- Board of Com'rs of Stanly County v. ColerFourth Circuit· 1902-02-04· cited 5×
- Board of Com'rs v. Travelers' Ins. Co.Fourth Circuit· 1904-02-02· cited 4×
- Folsom v. Greenwood CountyFourth Circuit· 1905-05-09· cited 4×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Burgess v. SeligmanSupreme Court· 1883-01-29· cited 389×
- Anderson v. Santa AnnaSupreme Court· 1886-01-04· cited 80×
- Harter v. KernochanSupreme Court· 1881-02-28· cited 66×
- County of Livingston v. DarlingtonSupreme Court· 1880-04-19· cited 42×
- Bolles v. BrimfieldSupreme Court· 1887-03-21· cited 42×
- Weightman v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1881-02-28· cited 17×
- Lewis v. Pima CountySupreme Court· 1894-10-29· cited 17×
Other cases named Folsom v. Ninety Six
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.