In the 1893 case of Hedges v. Dixon County, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving county bonds issued to aid in railroad construction. The plaintiff, Hedges, was an investor who purchased bonds from Dixon County under the assumption that they were legally authorized and validly issued by Nebraska law. However, it later emerged that there had been irregularities in how these bonds were approved and issued which potentially rendered them invalid. The court held that despite any potential procedural errors or irregularities during their issuance process, such as not strictly adhering to statutory requirements for public notice before issuing the bonds; because they had already been sold to bona fide purchasers (like Hedges) who bought them in good faith without knowledge of these issues - those buyers should be protected and thus could enforce payment against Dixon County.

In the dissenting opinion for Hedges v. Dixon County, it was argued that the county should not be held liable for a bridge's collapse and subsequent damages because there was no negligence on their part. The dissenting justices believed that the county had fulfilled its duty by contracting competent engineers to build and maintain the bridge, thus they could not reasonably foresee or prevent its failure due to an extraordinary flood. They also pointed out that holding municipalities financially responsible for such unforeseeable disasters would place an undue burden on them, potentially leading to financial ruin in some cases. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling which found Dixon County liable for damages resulting from a natural disaster beyond their control.