In the case of First National Bank of Columbus, Ohio v. Louisiana Highway Commission et al., 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First National Bank. The bank had purchased bonds from a county in Louisiana and later discovered that these were issued illegally by local officials who exceeded their authority under state law. When they sought to recover their investment, the State argued it was not liable because its agents acted beyond their legal powers (ultra vires). However, the court held that when public officers act outside their lawful authority but within apparent scope of office and third parties are misled thereby into parting with property or surrendering some valuable right, such acts cannot be repudiated by state to injury of innocent third party dealing with them on faith as being what they appear to be - official acts performed within scope of official duty.

The dissenting opinion in the case of First National Bank of Columbus, Ohio v. Louisiana Highway Commission et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing for expropriation without prior notice or hearing was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings which held that property could not be taken without proper notification and an opportunity to contest it in court. They further contended that while public use is a valid reason for expropriation, it does not justify ignoring constitutional protections around due process. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s ruling upholding Louisiana’s statute as lawful.