Gunnison County Commissioners v. Rollins, 173 U.S. 255 (1899)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 173 U.S. 243, click here.

Gunnison County Commissioners v. Rollins

No. 178

Argued December 15-16, 1898
Decided February 20, 1899
173 U.S. 255

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Although the bill of exceptions in this case does not state in so many words that it contains all the evidence, it sufficiently appears that it does contain all, and this Court can inquire on this record whether the circuit court erred in giving a peremptory instruction for the defendant.

The recitals in the bonds of Gunnison County, the coupons of which are in suit in this case, that they were

issued by the Board of County Commissioners of said Gunnison County in exchange at par, for valid floating indebtedness of the said county outstanding prior to September 2, 1882, under and by virtue of and in full conformity with the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, entitled "An act to enable the several counties of the state to fund their floating indebtedness," approved February 21, 1881; "that all the requirements of law have been fully complied with by the proper officers in the issuing of this bond," that the total amount of the issue does not exceed the limit prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and that this issue of bonds has been authorized by a vote of a majority of the duly qualified electors of the said County of Gunnison, voting on the question at a general election duly held in said county on the seventh day of November, A.D. 1882,

estop the county from asserting, against a bona fide holder for value that the bond so issued created an indebtedness in excess of the limit prescribed by the Constitution of Colorado.

This case is controlled by the judgment in Chafee County v. Potter, 142 U.S. 355, which the Court declines to overrule.

The plaintiff corporation was a bona fide holder, when this suit was brought, of some of the bonds sued for in it.

The case is stated in the opinion.