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 Iron Bridge And Manufacturing Company v. Otoe County

• 1887 • 124 U.S. 459 • Waite Court
This case was a dispute between King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing Company and Otoe County. The company had contracted with the county to build a bridge, and the county had agreed to pay the company for the bridge. However, the county refused to pay the company, claiming that the bridge was not built according to the contract. The company then sued the county for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the county had...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: 1887
Docket: 1154
124 U.S. 459
8 S. Ct. 582
31 L. Ed. 514
1888 U.S. LEXIS 1881

King Iron Bridge And Manufacturing Company v. Otoe County

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

This case was a dispute between King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing Company and Otoe County. The company had contracted with the county to build a bridge, and the county had agreed to pay the company for the bridge. However, the county refused to pay the company, claiming that the bridge was not built according to the contract. The company then sued the county for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the county was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the county had agreed to pay the company for the bridge, and that the company had fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The Court also found that the county had failed to prove that the bridge was not built according to the contract. Therefore, the Court held that the county was liable for breach of contract and ordered it to pay the company for the bridge.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing Company v. Otoe County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska had authority to levy taxes on property owned by an out-of-state corporation. The majority opinion held that such taxation was unconstitutional as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states have always been able to tax nonresidents who own property within their borders, even if those individuals do not reside there or conduct business there. He further noted that allowing counties to tax these properties would help ensure fairness among taxpayers since all citizens should be subject to taxation regardless of where they live or what type of property they own. In conclusion, he argued that while due process must be respected when levying taxes against individuals living outside state boundaries, it is still permissible for states and local governments to impose taxes on nonresident owners of real estate located within their jurisdiction so long as those laws are reasonable and justly applied without discrimination between residents and nonresidents alike.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Jan 30, 1888
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