In the case of Bristol v. Washington County, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving tax obligations and railroad bonds. The county had issued bonds to aid in constructing a railway line but later refused to levy taxes for paying off these bonds due to allegations that they were fraudulently obtained. Bristol, who held some of these bonds, sued the county seeking payment. The court found that even if there was initial fraud involved in obtaining the bond issue approval from voters or officials within Washington County, it did not absolve them from their obligation towards innocent third parties who purchased those securities without knowledge of any wrongdoing. Therefore, it upheld an earlier ruling by lower courts ordering Washington County to honor its debt commitments related to those railroad construction bonds.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bristol v. Washington County argued that the county should not be held liable for a bond issued to a railroad company because it was unconstitutional under state law. The justice believed that the majority's decision ignored precedent and violated principles of federalism by allowing federal courts to overrule decisions made by state courts on matters of state law. He also contended that there was no evidence proving that the county had received any benefit from issuing these bonds, which he viewed as necessary for them to be considered valid obligations. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "public purpose," arguing instead that this term should only apply when public funds are used directly for public benefits rather than indirectly through private corporations like railroads.