In the case of Hickman v. Fort Scott, 1891, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city in Kansas had the authority to issue bonds for railroad construction without voter approval. The City of Fort Scott issued $100,000 worth of bonds to aid in building a railway line but did not seek public consent before doing so. A taxpayer named Hickman challenged this action and refused to pay his taxes on grounds that they were being used unlawfully. The court ruled against Hickman stating that while it is generally necessary for cities to obtain voter approval before issuing such bonds, there are exceptions when it comes to projects deemed beneficial for public welfare like railroads or highways which can be funded by municipal corporations without direct democratic input.

In the dissenting opinion for Hickman v. Fort Scott, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of law. The dissent emphasized that a city should not be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain streets if it had no notice or knowledge of their dangerous condition. It also pointed out that there was no evidence presented in this case showing that the city knew about the defective state of Wall Street where plaintiff fell and got injured. Furthermore, he disagreed with imposing liability on cities without fault, arguing it would place an undue burden on them financially and operationally as they would have to constantly inspect every inch of their jurisdiction to avoid potential lawsuits. He believed such a ruling could lead to excessive litigation against municipalities which is contrary to public interest.