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

Knox County v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman

1878 • 131 U.S. clxvi • Waite Court
In Knox County v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for a debt incurred by a former county official. The case arose when the United States brought a suit against Knox County, Tennessee, on behalf of a former county official, William Harshman. Harshman had been appointed by the county to serve as its treasurer, and he had incurred a debt of $2,000 while in office. The United States sought to recover...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: 1878
Docket: 712
131 U.S. clxvi
25 L. Ed. 191
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1356

Knox County v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Knox County v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for a debt incurred by a former county official. The case arose when the United States brought a suit against Knox County, Tennessee, on behalf of a former county official, William Harshman. Harshman had been appointed by the county to serve as its treasurer, and he had incurred a debt of $2,000 while in office. The United States sought to recover the debt from the county, arguing that it was liable for the debt because it had appointed Harshman to the position. The Supreme Court held that the county was not liable for the debt. The Court reasoned that the county had not authorized the debt, and that it had no knowledge of the debt until after Harshman had left office. Furthermore, the Court noted that the county had not received any benefit from the debt, and that it had not ratified the debt in any way. As such, the Court concluded that the county was not liable for the debt.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Knox County v. United States Ex Rel. Harshman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain a public road in good condition. The majority opinion found that counties are not responsible for such damages and therefore cannot be held liable in this instance. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it is unjust to allow counties to escape liability when they have failed in their duty as custodians of public roads and highways. He argued that if local governments do not take responsibility for maintaining these roads then citizens will suffer injury or loss due to negligence or carelessness on behalf of those charged with keeping them safe and passable at all times. Furthermore, he noted that allowing counties immunity from such liabilities would encourage them not only neglect their duties but also lead other states into similar practices which would ultimately result in an overall decrease in safety standards across America's highways and byways

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