| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

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.
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.