TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Osborne v. Adams County

Osborne v. Adams Cnty., 109 U.S. 1 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 15, 1883
Judges
Harlan
Citations
109 U.S. 13 S. Ct. 15027 L. Ed. 8351883 U.S. LEXIS 927
Syllabus
Internal Improvements — Municipal Bonds — Statutes. Application being made to open the judgment in this case in order to enable the court to consider the case of Traver v. Merrick County, decided by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and the court nowhaving considered it: Meld, that that ease is an authority in support of the former ruling of this court in this ease.
Summary
IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA. Motion for rehearing. The statement of facts appears fully in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Harlan

Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was decided at the last term of this court, and is reported in 106 U. S., 181 . We there held that a steam gristmill was not a work of internal improvement, within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska, approved February 15, 1869, authorizing counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties “ to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad or other work of internal improvement.” It was also said that the court was not justified by anything in Township of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U. S. 310 , or in the decisions of the *2 courts of Nebraska, “in holding that a steam or other kind of grist-mill is of the class of internal improvements which municipal townships in that State are empowered, by the statute in question, to aid by an issue of bonds.”

A petition for rehearing ivas filed near the close of the last term, calling our attention to the fact that the Supreme Court óf Nebraska had then recently decided that a grist-mill operated by water power was a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the before-mentioned statute. The judgment was suspended in .order that appellee might have an opportunity of presenting the full text of the opinion of the State court. That has been done at the present term. The case to which reference is made is Traver v. Merrick County, the opinion in which was not filed in the State court until after the close of our last term.

It is quite true, as claimed by counsel for appellee, that the • State court does, in that case, rule, that a water grist-mill is a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the statute in question. But the court takes care to say :

“ In onr view there is a clear distinction betweén aiding the development of the' water power of the State — a power that is continuing in its nature and may be used without cost'or expense, and must be used at certain points on a stream where a dam can be erected and power obtained — and a mill propelled by steam, that must be attended with' a continuous cost for fuel, and may at any time be moved to another locality.”

So far from the decision of the State court furnishing any ground for a rehearing, it is' an authority in support of that construction of the act of 1867 which excludes steam grist-mills from the class of internal improvements in aid of which counties, cities, and precincts of organized counties- are, by that statute, authorized to issue their bonds.

The rehearing is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 21890–1891: 11902–1903: 11906–1907: 11908–1909: 11924–1925: 11948–1949: 11976–1977: 11994–1995: 118842026peak 1884 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nipper v. Smith39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)
  2. Rodgers v. Travelers Insurance Co.278 S.W. 368 (Mo. 1925)
  3. Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of Colo.205 U.S. 454 (1907)
  4. Thomas v. Department of State Highways247 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1976)
  5. Cole v. La Grange113 U.S. 1 (1885)
  6. Kingman v. City of Brockton26 N.E. 998 (Mass. 1891)

Most recent

  1. Nipper v. Smith39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994)
  2. Thomas v. Department of State Highways247 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1976)
  3. Hardyman v. Collins80 F. Supp. 501 (S.D. Cal. 1948)
  4. Rodgers v. Travelers Insurance Co.278 S.W. 368 (Mo. 1925)
  5. United States v. Allen171 F. 907 (1909)
  6. Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of Colo.205 U.S. 454 (1907)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Twp. of Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U.S. 310 (1877) 23
Osborne v. Cnty. of Adams, 106 U.S. 181 (1882) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list