COMMERCIAL BANK OF CLEVELAND
v.
IOLA

U.S. | 1875-02-01
No. 741
22 L. Ed. 463 Supreme Court of the United States (1875) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1321 · SCDB 1874-196
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Miller

Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.

The only difference between this case and that of The Citizens’ Bank v. Topeka, just decided, (Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655,) is that the bonds were issued before the general act of February 29, 1872, there being at that time no statute of Kansas which professed to authorize the proceeding. But after the vote in favor of issuing the bonds, an act of the legislature ratified the vote and authorized the city officers to deliver the bonds and to levy the taxes necessary to pay their principal and interest. They were issued to a private corporation to aid in construct-, ing and operating foundry and machine shops.

This is all that is necessary to be said, and it shows that the case comes within the principles of the one just decided, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court holding the bonds void must be

Mr. Alfred Ennis for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. L. Williams for defendant in error. Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Weinberger v. The Bd. of Pub. Instruction of St. Johns Cnty., 93 Fla. 470 (Fla. 1927)
    …uch bonds, and, further, that no protection could be afforded a purchaser of such bonds even by a consent judgment in an action based on the bonds. See Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487; 27 Law. Ed. 238. See also: Com. Bank v. Iola, 154 U. S. 617; 22 Law. Ed. 463. See also the cases cited in 37 A. L. R. 1312, and see State ex rel. Nuveen v. Greer, supra. Nor could bonds so issued be lawfully validated by subsequent-legislative act. Of course, where bonds are sold to a bona fide purchaser while the statute au…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw