· 3/17/1884

Otoe County v. Baldwin

Citations

111 U.S. 1
4 S. Ct. 265
28 L. Ed. 331
1884 U.S. LEXIS 1750

Syllabus

Jurisdiction — Legislative Authority — Municipal Bonds — Municipal Corporations — Nebraska—Practice—Statutes. Bonds to the amount of $40,000 were issued by the county of Otoe, in the State • (then Territory) of Nebraska, to the Council Bluffs and St. Joseph Railroad Company, as a donation to that company to aid in the construction of a railroad in Fremont County, Iowa; to secure to said Otoe County an eastern railroad connection. Notwithstanding any defects or irregularities in the', voting upon or issuing said bonds, they were validated by § 8 of the act of the legislature of the State of Nebraska, passed February 15th, 1869 (Laws of 1869, .p. 92), entitled “An Act to enable counties, cities, ánd.precints to borrow money on their bonds, or to issue bonds to aid in the construction or completion of works of internal improvement in this State, and to legalize bonds already issued for such purpose,” taken in connection with another act of said legislature of the same date (Laws of 1869, p. 200). The decision of this court in Railroad Company v. County of Otoe, IQ Wall. 667, cited and applied. The legislature of a State, unless restrained by its organic law, has the right to authorize a municipal corporation to issue bonds in aid of a railroad, and to levy a tax to pay the bonds and the interest on them, with or without a popular vote, and to cure, by a retrospective .act, irregularities in the exercise of the power conferred. . . The first of said'acts of February 15th, 1869, was not in violation of section 19 of article 2 of the Constitution of Nebraska, of 1867, which provided that “no bill shall contain more.than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” Where an action of law is tried by a Circuit Court, without a jury, and the facts on which, on a writ of error, the plaintiff in error seeks to raise a question of law, are not admitted in the pleadings, or specially found by the court, and there is a general

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that, with respect to punitive damages, “[t]his has 19 been always left to the discretion of the jury, as the degree of punishment to be thus inflicted 20 must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case”
noting that, with respect to punitive 5 damages, “[t]his has been always left to the discretion of the jury, as the degree of 6 punishment to be thus inflicted must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case”
noting that, with respect to punitive damages, “[t]his has been always left to the 18 discretion of the jury, as the degree of punishment to be thus inflicted must depend on the 19 peculiar circumstances of each case”
noting that, with respect to punitive damages, 12| “[t]his has been always left to the discretion of the jury, as the degree of punishment to be 13 | thus inflicted must depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blatchford

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.