Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Board Of Commissioners Of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, Treasurer

• 1876 • 93 U.S. 108 • Waite Court
In Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, Treasurer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for a debt incurred by a former county treasurer. The case arose when the former treasurer of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, issued bonds to pay for the construction of a bridge. The bonds were issued without the approval of the county commissioners, and the county refused to pay the debt. The bondholders sued the county, arguing that...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Waite Court
Term: 1876
Docket: 39
93 U.S. 108
23 L. Ed. 822
1876 U.S. LEXIS 1358

Board Of Commissioners Of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, Treasurer

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, Treasurer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for a debt incurred by a former county treasurer. The case arose when the former treasurer of Tippecanoe County, Indiana, issued bonds to pay for the construction of a bridge. The bonds were issued without the approval of the county commissioners, and the county refused to pay the debt. The bondholders sued the county, arguing that the county was liable for the debt. The Supreme Court held that the county was not liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the county had not authorized the issuance of the bonds, and that the county had not received any benefit from the bonds. The Court also noted that the county had not ratified the bonds, and that the county had not taken any action to indicate that it was responsible for the debt. The Court concluded that the county was not liable for the debt, and that the bondholders could not recover from the county.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Board of Commissioners of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, Treasurer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for interest on bonds issued by its board of commissioners without legislative approval. The majority opinion found that the county was not liable because it had no authority to issue such bonds in the first place and therefore could not be held responsible for any resulting debt or interest payments. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that even though there may have been some irregularity in issuing these bonds, they were still valid obligations under state law and should be honored as such by holding the county accountable for payment of both principal and interest due on them. He further argued that if counties are allowed to avoid their financial responsibilities simply because they lack statutory authorization then creditors would suffer greatly since local governments would never have an incentive to pay back debts owed unless compelled by law.

Opinion written by Justice SJField
Decided: Nov 06, 1876
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms