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

King Bridge Company v. Otoe County

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 225 • Waite Court
In the case of King Bridge Company v. Otoe County, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska had the authority to enter into a contract with a bridge company to construct a bridge across a river. The bridge company argued that the county had no authority to enter into such a contract, as the state legislature had not granted the county the power to do so. The Supreme Court held that the county did have the authority to enter into the contract, as...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: 1886
Docket: 938
120 U.S. 225
7 S. Ct. 552
30 L. Ed. 623
1887 U.S. LEXIS 1964

King Bridge Company v. Otoe County

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of King Bridge Company v. Otoe County, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska had the authority to enter into a contract with a bridge company to construct a bridge across a river. The bridge company argued that the county had no authority to enter into such a contract, as the state legislature had not granted the county the power to do so. The Supreme Court held that the county did have the authority to enter into the contract, as the state legislature had granted the county the power to do so. The Court further held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the county was obligated to pay the bridge company for the construction of the bridge. The Court also held that the county was not liable for any damages caused by the bridge, as the bridge company had assumed the risk of any such damages.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of King Bridge Company v. Otoe County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska had authority to contract with an out-of-state corporation for construction of a bridge across one of its streams. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not authorized by state law and thus could not be enforced against the county. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while it may have been true that there was no express authorization under state law for counties to enter into such contracts, there was nothing in either the Constitution or any other statute which prohibited them from doing so. Furthermore, he argued that if states are allowed to make contracts with foreign corporations then surely counties should also be able to do so as well since they are part of those same states and subject to their laws. He concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for public works projects like bridges over navigable waters – especially when done on behalf of all citizens -to proceed without unnecessary delays due solely legal technicalities or narrow interpretations of statutes which might otherwise prevent them from being completed at all.

Opinion written by Justice JHarlan(1)
Decided: Jan 31, 1887
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