Supreme Court of the United States, 1866

Sheboygan Co. v. Parker

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 18, 1866 · Grier

70 U.S. 93; 18 L. Ed. 33; 3 Wall. 93; 1865 U.S. LEXIS 689 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. J. S. Brown, Butirick, and Hill, for the County, plaintiff in error. , After argument by Mr. M. H. Carpenter, contra, for the bondholder,

Cases that cite this one

37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Harvey v. Ridgeway (Ark. 1970)
Evans v. Beattie, Comptroller General (S.C. 1926)
County of Orange v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In re County of Orange) (United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California 1996)
Coulter v. Pool (Cal. 1921)
Osborn v. Henry (Ala. 1917)
State v. Doyle (La. 1915)
Todtenhausen v. Knox County (Tenn. 1915)
United States v. Donziger (2d Cir. 2022)
Officers of the United States Within the Meaning of the Appointments Clause (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2007)
Application of the Emoluments Clause to a Member of the President's Council on Bioethics (United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2005)
STATE EX REL. McCLURE ETC. v. MARION SUP. CT. ETC. (Ind. 1959)
State ex rel. McClure v. Marion Superior Court (Ind. 1959)
Smith v. State, Ex Rel. Duty, Prosecuting Atty (Ark. 1947)
People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Schreiber (Ill. App. Ct. 1944)
State Ex Rel. Osborn v. Eddington (Ind. 1935)
State v. Tyson (Ark. 1923)
Prendergast v. Cohalan (New York Supreme Court 1917)
State ex rel. Centani v. Marrero (La. Ct. App. 1915)
State ex rel. Buchanan County v. Imel (Mo. 1912)
Soliah v. Cormack (N.D. 1908)
State ex rel. Going v. Higginbotham (Ark. 1907)
State ex rel. Gubbins v. Anson (Wis. 1907)
State ex rel. Long v. Rexford (S.D. 1906)
People ex rel. Board of Commissioners for the Erection of a New Courthouse v. Board of Supervisors (New York Supreme Court 1901)
Spitzer v. Village of Fulton (New York Supreme Court 1900)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

*96 It is admitted that the bonds in question were issued in conformity with the statute of the Wisconsin legislature. By this statute, the bonds issued in pursuance of it are made “ full and complete evidence, both in law and equity, to establish the indebtedness of the county according to their tenor and effect.”

The objection is, that the act is unconstitutional and void. Is the objection well founded?

The commissioners or board of supervisors of a county, in the exercise of their general powers as such, have no authority to subscribe stock to railroads, and bind the people of the county to pay bonds issued for that purpose without special authority conferred upon them by the legislature. But when special authority is given to the people of a county to do these acts, and bind themselves by the issue of such bonds, the legislature may properly direct the mode in which it shall be effected. The persons specially appointed to act as agents for the people have a ministerial duty to perform in issuing the bonds, after the people, at an election held for the purpose, have assented that they shall be bound.

Such persons, in performance of their special duty, are in no proper sense, “ county officers.” They do not exercise any of the political functions of county officers, such as levying taxes, &c. They do not exercise “ continuously, and as a part of the regular and permanent administration of the government, any important public powers, trusts, or duties.” *

An officer of the county is one by whom the county performs its usual political functions; its functions of government. Any other persons appointed by the legislature and the people of the county, would be as competent to execute the bonds of the corporation as the supervisors. They are the lawful agents of the people for this special purpose, and though nominated by.the legislature, they cannot act without the assent of the citizens of the county, ascertained in the manner directed by law; and, having so acted, the county cannot now repudiate their acts. '

Judgment aeeirmed, with costs.

State v. Kennon, 7 Ohio, 562.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.