« AnteriorContinuar »
Jersev, against the people of the State of New York, and that on the 13th of February following the court would be moved in the case for such an order as the court might deem proper, &c. Afterwards, on the day appointed, no counsel having appeared for the State of New York, on motion of the counsel for the State of New Jersey, for a subpæna to be served on the Governor and Attorney-General of the State of New York, the court said : As no counsel appears to argue the motion on the part of the State of New York, and the precedent for granting it has been established, upon very grave and solemn argument, the court do not require an ex parte argument in favor of their authority to grant the subpoena, but will follow the precedent lieretofore established. The State of New York will be at liberty to contest the proceeding at a future time in the course of the cause, if they shall choose so to do. 16.
8. (Jan., 18:1.) Congress has passed no act for the special purpose of prescribing the mode of proceeding in suits instituted against a state, or in any suit in which the Supreme ('ourt is to exercise the original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 281.
9. It has been settled, on great deliberation, that this court may exercise its original jurisdiction in suits against a state, under the authority conferred by the Constitution, and existing acts of Congress. The rule respecting the process, the persons on whom it is to be served, and the time of service, is fixed. The course of the court after due service of process has also been prescribed. 1b.
10. In a suit in this court, instituted by a state against another state of the Union, the service of the process of the court on the Governor and Attorney-General of the state, sixty days before the return-day of the process, is a sufficient service. 16.
11. At a very early period in our judicial history, suits were instituted in this court against states, and the questions
concerning its jurisdiction and mode of proceeding were necessarily considered. 16.
12. After due service of the subpæna, the state which is complainant has a right to proceed ex parte ; and if, after the service of an order of the court for the hearing of the case, there shall not be an appearance, the court will proceed to final hearing. Ib. .
13. No final decree or judgment having been given in this court against a state, the question of proceeding to a final decree is not conclusively settled in this case until the cause shall come on to be heard in chief. 16.
1t. The cases of The State of Georgia v. Brailsford; Oswold v. The State of New York ; Chisholm's Erecutors v. The State of Georgia; The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut; Grayson v. The Commonwealth of Virginia ; cited as to the jurisdiction and modes of proceeding in suits in which a state is a party. Ib.
15. (Jan., 18.3.) Mr. Robbins, solicitor for the complainant, having renewed his motion of last terin in this case, prayed the court to award such process, and in such form, as the court may deem proper.
On consideration of the motion made in this case, it is now here ordered by the court that process of subpoena be, and the same is hereby awarded as prayed for by the complainant, and that said process issue against " The Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 7 Pet. 651.
16. (Dec., 1850.) A bill-by the State of Florida against the State of Georgia, ordered to be filed, and process of subpæna directed to be issued against the State of Georgia. Florida v. Georgia, 11 How. 293.
All motions hereafter made to the court shall be reduced to writing, and shall contain a brief statement of the facts and objects of the motion.
One hour on each side shall be allowed to the argument of a motion, and no more, without special leave of the court, granted before the argument begins.
No motion to dismiss, except on special assignment by the court, shall be heard, unless previous notice has been given to the adverse party, or the counsel or attorney of such party.
All motions to dismiss appeals and writs of error, except motions to docket and dismiss under the ninth rule, must be submitteil in the first instance on printed briefs or arguments. If the court desires further argument on that subject, it will be ordered in connection with the hearing on the merits. The party moving to dismiss shall serve notice of the motion, with a copy of his brief or argument, on the counsel for plaintiff in error or appellant of record in this court, at least three weeks before the time fixed for submitting the motion, in all cases except where the counsel to be notitied resides west of the Rocky Mountains, in which case the notice shall be at least thirty days. Afficavit of the deposit in the mail of the notice and brief to the proper address of the counsel to be served, duly post-paid, at such time as to reach him by due course of mail, the three weeks or thirty days before the time tixed by the notice, will be regarded as prima facie evidence of service on counsel who reside without the District of Columbia. On proof of such service, the inotion will be considered, unless, for satisfactory reasons, further time be given by the court to either party.
There may be united, with a motion to dismiss a writ of error or appeal, a motion to affirm on the ground that although the record may show that this court has jurisdiction, it is manifest the appeal or writ was taken for delay only, or that the question on which the jurisdiction depends is so frivolous as not to need further argument.
The court will not hear arguments on Saturday (unless for special cause it shall order to the contrary), but will devote that day to the other business of the court. The motion-day shall be Monday of each
week in lieu of Friday; and motions not required by the rules of the court to be put on the docket shall be entitled to preference immediately after the reading of opinions, if such motions shall be made before the court shall have entered upon the hearing of a cause upon the docket.
1. (Jan., 1829.) A motion to dismiss a suit for want of jurisdiction applies solely to cases where this court has not jurisdiction of the cause; and not where the Circuit Court has exceeded its proper jurisdiction in the particular case. C'unter v. A. f 0. Ins. Co., 2 Pet. 5:54.
2. (Jan., 1832.) Motion to dismiss a writ of error, on the ground that one of the matters put in issue in the court below did not appear by the record to have been decided : Refused, as the issue which was found by the jury made the plea, upon which no issue appears to have been decided, immaterial. Dufau v. Couproy's Heirs, 6 Pet. 170.
3. (Jan., 1832.) After a writ of error had been taken out to this court, in an indictment found and tried in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a nolle prose qui was entered in that court, by order of the President of the United States, and a copy of the same having been filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, the court, on motion of the Attorney-General, dismissed the cause. United States v. Phillips, 6 Pet. 776.
4. (Jan., 18:31.) A writ of error brought in the name of • Mary Deneale and others ; " dismissed for irregularity. A new one in due form may be brought. Deneale v. Stump, 8 Pet. 526.
5. (Jan., 1838.) In certain proceedings for the sale of property mortgaged, the widow and children of the deceased owner of the property were made defendants. The District Court of Louisiana gave a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The widow was entitled to her community in the property mortgaged, and had taken the property at the appraisement
and estimation. The writ of error to the District Court of Louisiana was issued in the name of “ The heirs of Nicholas Wilson," without naming any person as plaintiff. The widow of Nicholas Wilson did not join in the writ of error. The writ of crror wils dismissed on the two grounds, that no persou was named in it, and that the widow of Nicholas Wilson had not joined in it. lleirs of Wilson v. L. f. F. Ins. Co., 12 Pet. 110.
6. The rule of court is, that where there is a substantial defect in the appeal, or writ of error, the oinjection may be taken at any time before the judgment, on the ground that the case is not legally before the court, and that it has not jurisdiction to try it. 15.
7. The cases of Mary Deneale and others, plaintiffs v. Stump's Executors (8 Pet. 526), and Owings and others v. Kincannon (7 Pet. 399), cited. Ib.
8. (Jan., 1810.) In the State of Vermont, George Holmes was confined under a warrant issued by the Governor of that state, directing the sheriff of the County of Washington to convey and deliver him "to William Brown, the agent of Canadla, or to such person or persons as, by the laws of said province, may be authorized to receive the same, at some convenient place on the confines of this state and the said province of Lower Canada, to the end that he, the said George Holmes may be thence conveyed to the said district of Quebec, and be there dealt with as to law and justice appertains.”
The warrant stated that “ George Ilolmes was in the custody of the sheriff" by reason of a charge of felony sustained by indictment found by the grand jurors of the district of Quebec, in the province of Lower Canada ; that “the said George Ilolmes, on the 31st day of January, 1838, at the parish of St. Louis, of Kamouraska, in said district, did feloniously kill and murder one Louis Paschal Achille Tache ; and whereas the said George Ilolmes, not being a citizen of the State of Vermont, but a citizen of the said province of