In the case of Harper County Commissioners v. Rose in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving bonds issued by Harper County, Kansas to fund railroad construction. The county had issued these bonds under an act that was later found to be unconstitutional by the state's supreme court. Despite this ruling, bondholders like Rose sought payment from the county for their investments. However, Harper County refused to pay on grounds that since they were issued under an unconstitutional law, they were void and unenforceable. The U.S Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held in favor of Rose (the plaintiff). It stated that although it is true that no legislature can bargain away public police power or make irrepealable any contract of municipal government essential to its existence; however once such contracts have been made and rights have vested thereunder then it becomes obligatory upon states not only within limits of ordinary justice but also federal constitution which prohibits any state legislation impairing obligation of contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Harper County Commissioners v. Rose, it was argued that the county had no legal obligation to pay interest on bonds which were issued illegally. The dissenting justices believed that since the county commissioners did not have authority under Kansas law to issue these bonds in order to fund railroad construction, they should not be held responsible for paying interest on them. They contended that a contract made without proper legal authorization is void and cannot create any obligations or rights. Therefore, even though bondholders may have purchased these bonds in good faith and with expectation of receiving their investment back with interest, this does not change the fact that those who sold them had no right to do so in first place. This perspective emphasizes strict adherence to legality over protection of innocent parties who may suffer financial loss as result.