In the 1892 case of Cairo v. Zane, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation in Illinois. The City of Cairo had issued bonds to finance public improvements, which were purchased by Zane. However, when it came time for repayment, the city refused to pay on grounds that they believed their own ordinance authorizing these bonds was invalid due to exceeding debt limits set by state law at that time. In response, Zane sued for payment. The Supreme Court held in favor of Zane stating that even if there was an error or illegality in issuing those bonds initially as claimed by the city; this would not absolve them from paying back what they owed since such issues should have been addressed before selling those bonds rather than after purchasing them. Furthermore, it was also noted during proceedings that while cities do indeed have certain limitations imposed upon them regarding how much debt they can incur under state laws; however once a bond has been sold and is now owned privately - any disputes over its legality become irrelevant because at this point it becomes protected under contract law instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Cairo v. Zane, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of equity. He contended that a city should not be allowed to escape its financial obligations simply because it had exceeded its debt limit, particularly when creditors had no way of knowing this fact at the time they extended credit. According to Justice Brewer, allowing such an escape would undermine faith in municipal bonds and other forms of public credit by introducing uncertainty about their validity. Furthermore, he pointed out that many cities routinely exceed their debt limits without consequence or objection from state authorities until a lawsuit arises - suggesting selective enforcement based on convenience rather than principle.