[473] Hoeper v. Tax Commission, 284 U.S. 206 (1931).
[474] Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134, 147-150 (1938).
[475] Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, 291 U.S. 619 (1934).
[476] New York, P. & N. Teleg. Co. v. Dolan, 265 U.S. 96 (1924).
[477] Barwise v. Sheppard, 299 U.S. 33 (1936).
[478] Nashville, O. & St. L. Ky. v. Browning, 310 U.S. 362 (1940).
[479] Paddell v. New York, 211 U.S. 446 (1908).
[480] Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U.S. 701 (1884).
[481] Butters v. Oakland, 263 U.S. 162 (1923).
[482] Missouri P.R. Co. v. Western Crawford Road Improv. Dist., 266 U.S. 187 (1924). See also Roberts v. Richland Irrig. Co., 289 U.S. 71 (1933) in which it was also stated that an assessment to pay the general indebtedness of an irrigation district is valid, even though in excess of the benefits received.