Mitchell v. Burlington,
71 U.S. 270 (1866)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Mitchell v. Burlington, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 270 270 (1866)

Mitchell v. Burlington

71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 270


l. A provision in the charter of a city corporation authorizing it to borrow money for any public purpose whenever, in the opinion of the City Council, it shall be expedient to exercise it, is a valid power. Rogers v. Burlington, 3 Wall. 654, affirmed.

2. Money borrowed by such a corporation to construct a plank road, if the

Page 71 U. S. 271

road leads from, extends to, or passes through the limits of the corporation, is borrowed for a public purpose within the meaning of the provision.

3. Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 234, and Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, affirmed and the doctrine reasserted that if municipal bonds, when made, were valid by the constitution and laws of a state as then expounded by the highest judicial authority whose duty it was to interpret them, no subsequent judicial exposition of an opposite kind will make them invalid.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.