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

County Of Moultrie v. Fairfield

• 1881 • 105 U.S. 370 • Waite Court
In County of Moultrie v. Fairfield, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The bridge in question was located in the county of Moultrie, and it had been constructed by the county. The bridge had been in use for several years when it suddenly collapsed, causing injury to a man who was crossing it at the time. The man sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the injuries...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: 1881
Docket: 1137
105 U.S. 370
26 L. Ed. 945
1881 U.S. LEXIS 2135

County Of Moultrie v. Fairfield

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In County of Moultrie v. Fairfield, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a defective bridge. The bridge in question was located in the county of Moultrie, and it had been constructed by the county. The bridge had been in use for several years when it suddenly collapsed, causing injury to a man who was crossing it at the time. The man sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for the injuries he had suffered due to the defective bridge. The county argued that it was not liable because it had not been negligent in constructing the bridge. The Supreme Court agreed with the county, holding that the county was not liable for the damages caused by the defective bridge. The Court reasoned that the county had not been negligent in constructing the bridge, and thus it could not be held liable for the damages caused by the bridge's collapse.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in County of Moultrie v. Fairfield, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that a county cannot sue another county for debt without express statutory authority from the state legislature to do so. In this case, he noted there was no such statute granting permission for one county to sue another, thus making it impossible for Moultrie County to bring suit against Fairfield County. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if such a statute did exist allowing counties to sue each other directly over debts owed between them, it would still not apply in this case because of sovereign immunity principles which protect states and their subdivisions from being sued by other states or their subdivisions without consenting first. Therefore, Justice Field concluded that since neither condition had been met here - i.e., no authorizing statute nor waiver of sovereign immunity - then Moultrie County could not legally pursue its claim against Fairfield County and must instead seek relief through some other means outside of court proceedings

Opinion written by Justice WBWoods
Decided: Mar 06, 1882
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