Citation network
Gunnison County Commissioners Vs. Rollins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1899
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 255 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Gunnison County Commissioners v. RollinsSearch
-
U.S. 255 (1899) Gunnison County Commissioners v. RollinsSearch
-
of the limit prescribed by the Constitution of Colorado. This case is controlled by the judgment in Chafee County v. PotterSearch
-
which the Court considered the effect of recitals importing compliance with constitutional provisions. In Buchanan v. LitchfieldSearch
-
its bonds. The case might then, perhaps, have been brought within the rule announced by this Court in Town of Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
So, in the more recent case of Orleans v. PrattSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Northern Bank of Toledo v. PorterSearch
-
that they had been issued in conformity to law, the Court referred to the above rule established in Town of Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
A leading case on this subject is Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
the rule declared upon this point by this Court in the well considered words of Mr. Justice Strong in Town of Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
of those to whom the law refers the public for authentic and final information on the subject. In Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
therefore no estoppel as to the constitutional question, because there is no recital in regard to it. Carroll County v. SmithSearch
-
creation of a ministerial commission whose finding shall be taken in lieu of the facts. In the case of Sherman County v. SimonsSearch
-
action had been complied with, and that its finding was conclusive to a bona fide purchaser. So also, in Oregon v. JenningsSearch
-
This brings us in our reference to the authorities to the important case of Chaffee County v. PotterSearch
-
of them, were issued in violation of the constitution of the state. After referring to the decision in Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
as to the constitutional limit of indebtedness), and stating that it was based largely on the ruling in Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
In our opinion, these two features are of vital importance in distinguishing this case from Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
and Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
examination of any particular bond would not disclose, as it would in the Lake County case and in Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
would not be estopped from pleading the invalidity of the bonds in this particular. Such was the case in Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
did not show such recital to be untrue, under the law estops the county from saying that it is untrue. Town of Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
Marcy v. TownshipSearch
-
Northern Bank v. PorterSearch
-
After referring to what was said in Town of Coloma v. EavesSearch
-
and Buchanan v. LitchfieldSearch
-
We think this case comes fairly within the principles of those just cited, and that it is not governed by Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
and Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
It is contended that the present case is controlled by Sutliff v. LakeSearch
-
U. S. 230 , 147 U. S. 235 , 147 U. S. 237 -238, rather than by Chaffee County v. PotterSearch
-
or constitutional condition precedent, and did not require those facts to be made a matter of public record. Marcy v. OswegoSearch
-
Humboldt v. LongSearch
-
After referring to Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
above cited, the Court proceeded to show the precise grounds upon which the decisions in Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
and Chaffee County v. PotterSearch
-
and the ground upon which it rests, were approved and affirmed in Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
statute, which did not require the amount of indebtedness of the county to be stated on its records. In Lake County v. GrahamSearch
-
S. 273 be estopped to plead that limit. 130 U. S. 130 U.S. 682, 130 U. S. 683 . In Chaffee County v. PotterSearch
-
U.S. 142 U. S. 363 . The case at bar does not fall within Chaffee County v. PotterSearch
-
and cannot be distinguished in principle from Dixon County v. FieldSearch
-
or from Lake County v. GrahamSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial