Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
COMMERCIAL BANK OF CLEVELAND v. IOLA, 1875 — 154 U.S. 617 · caselaw · US
Corporations
COMMERCIAL BANK OF CLEVELAND v. IOLA
154 U.S. 61722 L. Ed. 463·Supreme Court of the United States·1875
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
COMMERCIAL BANK OF CLEVELAND v. IOLA.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.
No. 741.
Submitted December 9, 1874.
Decided February 1, 1875,
Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, followed.
[MAJORITY — 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.