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.
KENOSHA v. LAMSON, 1870 — 154 U.S. 573 · caselaw · US
General
KENOSHA v. LAMSON
154 U.S. 57319 L. Ed. 730·Supreme Court of the United States·1870
Dissenting, Mr. Justice Miller.
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
KENOSHA v. LAMSON.
error to the circuit court of the united STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.
No. 143.
Argued March 22 and 23, 1870.
Decided April 4, 1870.
Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, followed.
The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477, followed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. J. W. Cary for plaintiff in error.
Mr. M. H. Carpenter for defendant in- error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Nelson]
Mr. Justice Nelson
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin.
This was an action of assumpsit upon 516 coupons against the City of Kenosha, described in the declaration and notice accompanying it. They were all given in evidence, and when the plaintiff rested, the counsel for the defendants prayed the court to instruct the jury that the bonds, as well as the coupons, should have been given in evidence, which was refused. And further, that the city possessed no authority-to issue the bonds, which was also overruled. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
The first question was decided against the plaintiff in Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and the second in a ease at the. present term between the same parties. The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477. Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting, Mr. Justice Miller.