In United States, on the Relation of Chandler v. County Commissioners of Dodge County, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the County Commissioners of Dodge County, Nebraska, had the authority to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge. The Court held that the County Commissioners did not have the authority to issue the bonds, as the Nebraska Constitution prohibited the issuance of bonds for such a purpose. The case arose when the County Commissioners of Dodge County, Nebraska, sought to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge across the Elkhorn River. The County Commissioners argued that they had the authority to issue the bonds under the Nebraska Constitution. However, the United States argued that the Nebraska Constitution prohibited the issuance of bonds for such a purpose. The Supreme Court held that the County Commissioners did not have the authority to issue the bonds, as the Nebraska Constitution prohibited the issuance of bonds for such a purpose. The Court reasoned that the Nebraska Constitution was clear in its prohibition of the issuance of bonds for such a purpose, and that the County Commissioners had no authority to issue the bonds. The Court also noted that the County Commissioners had not sought the approval of the Nebraska Legislature, which was required for the issuance of such bonds. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the County Commissioners of Dodge County, Nebraska, did not have the authority to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge across the Elkhorn River. The Court reasoned that the Nebraska Constitution prohibited the issuance of bonds for such a purpose, and that the County Commissioners had not sought the approval of the Nebraska Legislature, which was required for the issuance of such bonds.

In United States, on the Relation of Chandler v. County Commissioners of Dodge County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a county in Nebraska could be held liable for damages caused by its failure to maintain a bridge over an interstate river. The majority opinion found that counties are not liable for such damages because they do not have any legal duty or authority to maintain bridges over navigable rivers. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it is within the power of states to impose duties upon their political subdivisions and thus make them responsible for maintaining public works like bridges. He further stated that if Congress had intended otherwise then it would have expressly prohibited states from imposing such obligations on their political subdivisions when enacting legislation concerning navigation laws. Therefore, he concluded that since no express prohibition exists in federal law regarding state-imposed duties upon local governments with respect to navigable rivers, then Dodge County should be held accountable for failing to properly maintain the bridge at issue in this case.