*1 1903. Syllabus. S. IT.. two, no substantial the- identity- character of the- devices;,, unless, by substantial is identity, every méant combination the same effect. The produces differences- between the device and the Cramer Diehl construction are substantial and not .colorable. merely
The- trial court should have- granted- the motion to direct a In verdict for the defendant. affirming, action of the trial motion, the. overruling Circuit Court Appeals- erred, must, therefore, and its judgment reversed. The of the Circuit Court is also reversed judgment and the cause that court with is remanded to directions to a grant trial, new and for further inconsistent with proceedings opinion.
Reversed and remanded. took no part decision of this Mr. Justice McKenna cause.
SOUTH DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. THE IN SUPREME COURT OP THE UNITED STATES. April 8. January No. Original. Argued 13, 14, 15, 1903; reargued 8, 11, 12, 1904. Decided February jurisdiction brought by an This court has over action one State right, a property another to enforce where one State absolutely owns specifically bonds of another which are secured shares of stock belonging debtor State this court can a enter adjudging decree amount due and for foreclosure sale of the in case security non-payment, leaving question judgment over for deficiency to be determined when it arises. gift validity, The motive a does not is affect nor originally this court affected the fact that the bonds were owned complainant individual who donated them to the State. provides a par Where a statute that State issue bonds at not less than pay subscription company; and, for to stock of railroad after adver- tising receiving none, accordance with statute and bids the-bonds company payment are delivered to the railroad subscription, DAKOTA CAROLINA. o. NORTH U. Case. Statement of the par, equivalent company sale cash at transaction though even formal becomes the owner the stock no certificates it. are issued to therefor special provisions of Under the the statute involved *2 the endorsement $1000 by equal bond for is an amount the bonds that each secured of par by State, value of subscribed a the stock is tantamount to separation and of identification-of the number shares mentioned and con- registered a separate mortgage stitutes and- number of shares for bond. each A a holder of of specific certain number such bonds on the foreclose securing number of his shares bonds and the other and of holders of bonds parties the railroad property company necessary liens on of are not to the foreclosure suit. By 82, Laws, 1848-49, 1849, chap. an act passed by was chartered State Railroad Company Carolina North a of divided'into with capital of North Carolina $3,000,000, for 20,000 $100 each. The State subscribed of 30,000 shares to borrowing money authorized shares. The statute security as therefor the and subscription pledged the state pay In by held the State. company of the railroad stock by for. shares was authorized stat- 10,000 further subscription be on the same terms Laws, 1854-55, to issued ute, chap. an At the same session act was security. with the same and North Railroad Western Carolina incorporating passed 1854-55, which authorized a sub- Laws, chap. Company, bonds and the issue of secured by the scription in said On Decem- the State company. the stock held 106, Laws, act was a further passed, chap. ber 1866- 19, 1866, of the bonds “An act enhance value to be 67, entitled for the the Western North Carolina Rail- completion issued and road, which, reférring for other after purposes,” acts of the State the issue-ofbonds authorizing and stat- prior ing portion already issued, that a of them had been added:
“And, whereas, interest of manifestly people the. bonds, when issued, whole that the residue market; therefore, a high price command shall Assembly the General Be it enacted “Sec. enacted and it is Carolina, authority hereby
North TERM, 1903. Case. 192 U. Statement be, and he is same, hereby, treasurer author- public That the his directed, it shall become duty ized and whenever under the at provisions acts, of said the sessions passed 185U-55 and 1860-61, to issue bonds of the State to the of fifty amount or inore, thousand dollars amount mortgage equal stock the State now holds in North Carolina Rail- bonds, road, for the of said security payment collateral bond, deliver, execute each several deed mort- with for an of stock said North Carolina gage equal amount by the Treasurer and Railroad, signed said to be mortgage said part to constitute Comptroller, countersigned it, with pro- like bond, transferable manner North Carolina Railroad vided charter of Western' said shall have all the and, further, mortgages Company; óf effect, mortgages law and equity, registered force registry.” without actual *3 $1000 , were the sum of act bonds issued
Under this last each, indorsement: having this Carolina, Treasury Department, North
“State July 1867.
“Raleigh, act -general assembly of an provisions the “Under ‘An act to enhance value of entitled North Carolina North completion for the Western bonds to be issued and ratified purposes,1' for other Railroad Company, Carolina stock North shares of the December, 1866,-ten 19th originally subscribed for Railroad Company, Carolina security for the pay- collateral mortgaged hereby are bond.- of this ment arid seal of treasurer signature public
“Witness the comptroller. counter-signature office, and
“Kemp P. Battle, Public Treasurer.” W. Comptroller. “S. Burgin, ( (cid:127) . ' In due became years ran thirty bonds These commissioners to of North Carolina appointed men- debt, and all last state adjust compromise v. NORTH CAROLINA. SOUTH DAKOTA 192U.,S._- of the Case. Statement with have been compromised exception bonds tioned M. Schafer, Schafer Samuel $250,000. Simon either about large owned a proportion or as these individually partners,. for thirty years. them about .bonds, held having outstanding bonds ten these to the Shafer gave In Simon gift accompanying The letter these South Dakota. ’ words: . . Street, No. 35 Wall Brothers, “Office of Schafer September 10th, “New'York, 1901.! Burke. H. “Hon. Charles members of the firm one
“Dear Sir: The undersigned, consultation with-the other decided, after has Bros!, of .Schafer bonds issued the State of second-mortgage holders of the bonds of these to the State of donate ten Carolina, North .to (cid:127) South Dakota. thirty have waited for some bonds “The holders of'these would of North Carolina the State years the hope , these payment'of claims of'their justice realize the bonds. besides, course, due, about
“The all now bonds are seventy one hundred and some which amount coupons, the bond. cent of face of per they have been advised that bonds
“The holders of these of North Carolina on the State a suit against cannot maintain a for- can be maintained suit bonds, but that these the United States.. byor one of eign State if not mostly, entirely, per- “The bonds are owners of these deserving needy, charity sons who liberally give *4 the unfortunate. or States
“These bonds can be advantage used to great owners would majority prefer .and the foreign governments; is in the trifle-which way them .than take to use this rather offered the debtor.. -it bonds in these collecting succeed
“If should your State total majority the owners would be the'inclination such outstanding to donations to now make additional issue vol,, oxen —19 1903.
Statement Case. as governments may be able collect from the repudiating State, rather than accept the small pittance offered settle- ment.
“The donors of these ten bonds would be pleased if the of South legislature Dakota should apply proceeds of these bonds to the State University or to some its asylums or other charities.
“Very respectfully,
“Simon Schafer.” 11, Prior thereto, March State South .and passed Dakota had the following- act, Laws, Session South Dakota, chap. 227: p.
“An act to require acceptance and collections of grants,
devises, donations, bequests, and assignments to the State of South Dakota.
“Be it enacted Legislature South Dakota: of.the 1. That whenever any grant, devise, bequest, donation “Sec. or gift assignment money, or bonds or choses action, or of any real or shall property, personal, be made to this State, the hereby directed governor to receive and accept same, so that the and title to right the same shall pass State; bonds,motes all in action, or choses or the proceeds collected, all thereof other or property thing value, when so received the State reported by aforesaid shall end legislature,' to the saíne be' governor to the treasury or appropriated covered into public or schools, charities, to state University or as may public to. directed law. by' hereafter be necessary
“Sec. Whenever shall be or protect assert any or title of State to so right received or property aforesaid, reduce possession any derived or to collect or into bond, note, action, general bill or chose is directed attorney necessary suit proper proceedings bring take the court of jurisdiction, the name of the State competent suits, all such and is author- prosecute and to Federal, state *5 DAKOTA CAROLINA. NORTH of Statement the Case. in be with him such counsel to associated suits ized to employ shall him, fully State, with who, represent actions, and of recov- out compensation shall be entitled reasonable in such suits and actions.” eries and collections a dona- on the passed suggestion perhaps This act was that would be made of bonds of States tion Southern State. leave hav- 18, 1901, Dakota, the State of South On November in its obtained, complaint, been first filed this court bill' of ing Carolina, State North Simon Roths- making defendants the be and one of the holders owners of the bonds childs (alleged by State and secured pledge issued originally under Company in Railroad the acts North Carolina stock 1855) be one of (alleged Salter of 1849 and and Charles issued under act 1866-on of the bonds and holders to the Western North Caiolina subscription account the two individuals defend- being'made Railroad Company), to which classes of bondholders ants representatives In it setting after forth they severally belong. plaintiff, bonds and its several issues of facts reference be might ten, prayed of title to account acquisition ; issued virtue of these statutes that taken all the bonds be amount found due on required pay North Carolina and that payment held default the bonds plaintiff, claiming might all said North Carolina under persons all right redemption be and foreclosed equity barred shares of stock held thirty thousand in-and to the be many necessary shares or as thereof might and that these mortgage indebtedness, the entire be discharge to- off pay payment and the after proceeds applied sold costs ánd of the bonds coupons satisfaction secured such mort- also for a receiver and an injunction. gages; made no answer. Defendant Rothschilds On April North and the defendant, Salter, the State of Carolina Charles filed North Carolina answer denied answers. separate court and plaintiff; both of this the title of the the.jurisdiction were issuéd conformity averred the bonds with the TERM, 1903. Argument Complainant.
statute; admitted the.ownership thirty thousand shares of *6 stock; denied that the were mortgages properly executed or &r_ had of they conveyances that the effect transfers either in or law or equity stock, said conferred lien any by way or pledge same; otherwise denied that she ever had or any agreement whatever other compact than that contained in the Constitution of the United States South Dakota, with or that South Dakota had ever informed North Carolina of any her, claim any it, or made in demand or respect effort to settle or accommodate. Salter’s answer was mainly an admission of bill with a claim all allegations in stock should be sold satisfaction the mortgage bonds of which he was charged to be the representative. Testimony was taken under direction of the court before commissioners agreed upon by-the parties.
Mr. H. Peckham, Wheeler with whom Mr. R. W. Stewart was brief, for complainant: This jurisdiction court has as the suit comes within the pre ciseterms of Ill of Art. the Constitution. Where the language used a constitution or statute is clear and free from plain, ambiguity there no room or occasion for interpretation, and the language must be construed to its according plain meaning and intent. One citation is sufficient—Bate Refrigerating Co. “Quoties v. U. S. Sulzberger, 157 ambi verbis nulla est ibi 'nulla guitas contra verba expositio est.” v. Everard fienda Q. B. 183; Gadsby 5 v. Poppleton, Barry, Scott, 8 N. R. 804. The decision v. Chisholm 2 Dall. Georgia, 419, that the suit would lie was occasion for the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, but as limited to the event of a citizen suing became conclusive proof that, as to suits between two by or more of suits a against citizens another State, it was intended that the provisions original Con should stand. See Curtis on U. 2d S. Const. ed. stitution . 15
A
liable
State is also
to be
United States
sued
this
v.
293
CAROLINA.
DAKOTA
NORTH
Argument
Complainant.
U. S.
Texas,
on an action
621;
United States
Court.
U. S. 211.
Carolina,
North
debt. United States
a State
this court
also
sued
The United States
Hitchcock,
Minnesota v.
to a statute.
pursuant
is for collection of when a.State enters into the borrower, lays markets the world as a she for a time aside her and becomes a civil sovereignty responsible corporation. Louisiana v. v. Jumel, 740; Charleston, 107 U. S. 96 Murray York U. S. 445. The and New Hampshire cases New Louisiana can distinguished be from this case.
The State of Dakota is
to become the owner
competent
holder of these bonds. Texas v. White,
7 Wall.700. It
to draw and
sovereign power
incident
both
purchase
12
Bank,
balls.
States v.
Pet. 377. Also
a
United
to become
donee, whether
or
Matter
by legacy
Meriam,
otherwise.
Subd. 10, II, section article Constitution, which for a bids State to or with any agreement compact into enter another does not affect the right complainant to hold these bonds; agreements or intended are- compacts of a political nature, sovereigns such as could made between only and Branch ordinary agreements. business Union R. R. Co. v. R., East Tenn. & R. 2 327; Story Geo. Georgia, Com. 1354 and et A is hot seq promise pay money §§ 1903.
Argument
Complainant.
192 U. S.
an agreement of the character intended to be prohibited. See
4 Dall.
456;
445;
Jennison,
Holmes v.
There is in nothing proofs respecting gift answer controversy suit affects the jurisdiction. The gift was absolute and the State had it. right accept See B. R. Curtis N. Am. Review, January, 1844, and vol. 2, p. 93 Curtis’s Life.
It is impossible to impute to the complainant any improper motive, any more than if the had been gift by legacy rather than inter by gift vivos. motive, But even a complainant, is immaterial. The only is, has the question complainant á right? Whether acquired good, with bad or indifferent mo tives is immaterial. quite Tuthill, Morris v. Y. 72 N. 575; Rice v. Y. Rockefeller, 174; 134 N. v. Ramsey Gould, 57 Barb.
398; Morawetz on Corporations, 259, and cases cited; Pen
§
L.
der v.
R. 6
Div.
Lushington,
75;
Ch.
Phelps Nowlen, 72
N. Y. McDonald v.
39;
Smith,
Pet.
624;
Barney Balti
280;
6 Wall.
Smith v.
more,
Kernochan,
When the State owns whole interest, legal and beneficial, on, bonds sued which interest it ac- empowered to and did virtue of quire acquire by legislature, the act individuals, from it makes no donation difference motive of donor was hope that the State would bring bonds. suit
The assignment the bonds of the defendant State to the State carried with it the complainant mortgage the railroad by the legislature stock created the defendant State to Michigan bonds. Conversev. Dairy Co., secure the 45 Fed. 18. Rep.
The endorsement and as an of- delivery assignment operated the and transferred to the of the notes mortgage holder the in rights mortgage same the he equitable had Ulmann, notes. v. Walk. Ch. 251; Cooper Briggs v. Hanno- 295 v. CAROLINA. DAKOTA NORTH „ Argument Complainant. for . 192 . Wall. Kenni
wald, 474; Longan, 271; 35 16 Carpenter Mich. v. bott Oberv. 452; Gallagher, v. 16 Wall. 199. Supervisors, or bonds were though only portion In cases of the notes these enabled the com complainant the transfer acquired because an of a foreclose, assignment plainant part .to notes, bonds or the mort debt, one or several secured gage mortgage. carries with it interest proportional The made a secure statutory mortgage defendant State whole issue of the bonds sued on. The for act provided amount of stock as collateral mortgaging equal security for of said bonds. whole Plainly, amount payment shares of became for whole security stock amount bonds. White and Tudor’s Cases 3d Am. Equity, 3 Leading ed., Wallace’s cases of Row v. Dawson and Ryall notes to the v. Rowles, and 646. pp. 369 security debt, for mortgage simply what
ever mortgage English transfers the debt carries with it the v. 25 178. Carney, Michigan,
A as mortgage given obligations secure several stands if whole, one of the security mortgagee assigns ato third stands obligations person, mortgage equity in. for all well for the one security obligations, assigned as v. Elston, 180, 183 Kortlander 52 Fed. ; those retained. Rep. Y. Bronson, 20; Matter 150 Jermain L. S. Ry. Co., 91 N. to undivided Y. As fractional interests N. 492. R. R. Y.
whole, Flynn Brooklyn City Co., 158 504; see N. Y. 1 Fitch, 94; 160 N. Morawetz on 237. Matter Corp. §§ rights mortgage bondholders, As of the second Sager see Michigan, 134; Menold, Wheeler v Tupper, Iowa, In any aspect case, first and second mortgage bondholders, general in principles being equity, funds, terested be rnaáe Story must Pl. parties. Eq. 97, 112; 510; Florida v. 17 How. also Georgia, see California v. So. U. Minnesota v. R., 229; S. Northern Securities Pac. R. U. State v. Co., 199; Washington Northern Securi ties U. S. 255. Co., 185 *9 TERM, 1903.
296
.
Argument
Complainant.
for
bonds
holders of
mortgage
parties,
first
see
making
As to
747, 754,
U. S.
Ins. Co., 123
cases cited;
v.
Heffner
Life
Sutherland v. L.
734;
U. S.
S.
1
McCarter,
Co.,
Jerome v.
94
Adams, 76 Fed.
899;
L. Jour.
McClure v.
127;
Rep.
Cent.
Board
Dillon, 188;
R.,
2
v. Min. Pt. R.
Woodson,
Murdock v.
2R., Woods,
24
v. Texas R.
263.
Wisconsin, 93; Campbell
bond,
for
regard
security
with
The certificate
statute,
the con-
shares,
no
cannot affect
being
part
ten
a§ to which the rule
is
statute,
is that what
struction
as
in it is as much
it what is
part
expressed.
implied
maker of
being
intention
the statute
The
mucb
letter,
the court has to
statute
it within
within
which was
stock
meaning;
mortgage
ascertain the
all.the
bonds,
all
each
United
proportionately.
secure
States v.
Black,
v.
103 U.
61;
Bank,
1
Watson Nat.
Babbitt,
County of
770
North
to former
As
litigation
regard
legislation
see
North
road,
Carolina,
Swasey
Carolina concerning
R.
In served with equities adjudged all same are class, binding upon persons although process because vicarious from litigation, absent representa of the same class to which tion present litigants they R., v. New R. 75 Morton Orleans Alabama, 611. belong. Trust Co. Penacook also Knickerbocker Mfg. Co., See v. Nor. Trust Co., Dickerman Fed. 814; Fed. Rep. Rep. of the clauses of the Constitution construction giving- controversies between States and to this over jurisdiction other citizens of States should liberal between States and to out the to favor such in the extreme carry the Constitution to be beneficent obtained. purposes by sought v. NORTH CAROLINA. SOUTH DAKOTA -Argument Defendant, State of North Carolina. *10 D. General of Gilmer, Robert Mr. Attorney E. Mr: Mr. James Rountree, Carolina, George Shepherd North for North State of defendant, II. Merrimon James Mr. : Carolina (cid:127) decree to make court is without jurisdiction any against The cause. Carolina A can- of North sovereign the State The 161 U. S. Schild, 10; Siren, v. 7 Belknap not be sued. 8 198 1869, ; L. R. v. Smith v. 152; Weguelim, Briggs Eq. Wall. to This rule suits 11 Boats, Allen, applies 157. Light brought the States of this Union. courts either of Federal v. 527; Louisiana, 20 How. New Arkansas, Hampshire Beers v. ; R. 109 116 ; v. M. B. U. S. R., & 108 S. 76 Cunningham U. 131 U.S. 1. 1; Texas, U. S. Louisiana v. 176 Louisiana, Hans v. to the exercise of did not consent The State jurisdiction by v. 12 Pet. merits. Rhode Island Massachusetts, to the pleading 185 12 Plead. & v. Hitchcock, 373; Minnesota Ency. 657 ; 1 Sr. 191; v. Lord 127, 188, Baltimore, Penn Vesey, Prac. pp. 2 429. Chisholm Dall. Case, Iredell’s Justice 444; opinion the. answer in New bill, there was proof Hamp Apparently, dismissed the court 76, 108 U. S. v. Louisiana, yet shire for want of cause jurisdiction. it be such court has parties, provided This ”' “ two or more States as is contem between a controversy III, Art. of2, sec. power by judicial plated grant not and if it be the ob the Constitution, controversy at 1 29; time. Foster’s Rule, be taken Equity any jection v. 536 Indiana Tolliston 53 249, ; Club, Prac. 241, Fed. 18. Fed. The consent authority Competent give Rep. only for the State be sued is the the State. general assembly v. 128 N. 12. Car. This has Moody Prison, not been done. If a State consents to be sued consent can be with drawn at time, it has been protest State. v. Beers 20 How. Arkansas, 527 v. ; Sultan Mighell Johore, Q. 1894, 1 B. ; Lord Esher. Judgment The State did not be sued a cause consent like this bv States and member the United becoming subscribing “ not such a controversy Constitution. suit is present ” between more States two. contemplated by Defendant,
Argument
State of North Carolina
Constitution, of the United States. There are
eases in
many
which this court has decided
jurisdiction seemed to come within the words of the Constitution. Ken
24 How.
Dennison,
v.
;
tucky
v.
Mississippi
Johnson, 4
Wall.
;
6 Wall.
Georgia
Stanton,
New
50;
Hampshire
The controversies intended Constitu tion were akin to those naturally with which had become they familiar from the such experience colonies, as. those out of claims for soil, growing territory, jurisdiction bound United States v. 143 ary. Texas, 639 on 621, ; Story Constitution, 1674, 1675. §§ must arise between the dispute directly States and not
be an assumed As to the nature of the quarrel. controversy, see The No. 80. Until this Federalist, court has enter recently tained In each of the only boundary disputes. v. Missouri 180 U. Illinois, S. two cases only recently brought, 185 U. S. 125, Colorado, v. 208; controversy Kansas and was not fac arose between contending directly action, of the titious —made by complaining voluntary and with existing already assuming controversy com were as it had Practices no concern. proper as Colorado, v. of in v. and Kansas Illinois, Missouri plained be war to lead- cases of well as the disputed boundary, might absolute was no ; tween nations but there independent surely ” “ for to to the sword order prevent necessity appeal due to loans a State to- debts; tribunal collect ordinary v. NORTH CAROLINA. 299 SOUTH DAKOTA Defendant, -Argument for State of North Carolina. S. 192 U. which, unable individuals, they, collect, being
private to another State. voluntarily assign international law differ somewhat writers
While amon'g of those that greatest authority say themselves, many when their in- citizens, of nations, petitioned by practice due other nations for the tervene enforcement obligations are a distinction between such them, make obligations with a contractural —loans entered into voluntarily knowledge the risks and the of collection of all suit —and such inability by. as are tortious. refuse to interfere for the They generally do, of' collection but the redress other kinds of debts, International 435, 1 Halleck Law, grievances. note; ; 3d ed. Law, Hall’s International 277 New v. Hampshire 108 Louisiana, U. S. 76.
And such has been the the United practice England Int. 5 Law, States. Wharton’s Am. State Digest 231; § ; 403 British Jan. (For. Review, Rel.), Quarterly Papers, House Decem 54; Mr. Balfour 1876, Commons, p. ber to Venezuelan question. it is contention
But understood complainant’s suit is vindication of counsel is brought property cases several in which this court enter and there are has rights, tained bills of a State protect rights original proprietary individuals, such as injury infringement Georgia 402; 2 Dall. v. Pennsylvania Wheeling Bridge Brailsford, Texas v. Wall. 618; White, How. Florida 700; Company, 667; Alabama U. Anderson, Burr, *12 the suit is fact that in vindication of the The brought prop of the State is also not conclusive. In erty complaining rights Louisiana, New v. and 76, 108 U. S. v. Hampshire Wisconsin Insurance Co., Pelican 127 U. S. in were 265, property lights but ; volved the court declined on account of the nature title and the method and purpose acquire ment, see and Walker v. as Brad validity assignment, Q. D. 1883, 12 B. 511. Bank, 84, ford As see v. Pennoyer Neff, sovereignty 71; Lane v. Wall. Martin v. 714; 7 County Oregon, 1 2 Pet. Wheat. Buckner v. Hunter, 325; 586; Finaley, Cooley 300 1903.
Argument
Defendant,
State of North. Carolina.'
192--U.S.
Lim.
The Federalist,
Const.
Woodrow
29;
XXXII;
Wilson,
469;
The
&c. v.
11 Pet.
Mayor
Miln,
United
;
102
v.
Guthrie,
284;
States v.
17 How.
147
Stanley
Schwalby,
U.
Denison,
habitually
adjusted
to be
Union
persons
paid;
payment,
Confederations,
their
and States have-exercised
Hamilton’s
sovereign rights.
2
and 1795
;
1792;
An
Annals,
Report
Cong.
Cong.
1362 2 Pitkin. Civil Hist.
nals,
;
336;
121,
Writings Gallatin,
.
Ordronaux on
;113
Constitutional
283
Legislation,
A State is not liable to.suit
its bonds either
State! Such
individual
another
suits against States were
time of
unheard of at the
adoption
Constitution
would
them
not have been included if
power
bring
had been
Bank
made.
v. Ar
proposition
Washington
20 How.
Webster’s
kansas,
530, 532;
Bros.
Opinion Baring
& Co.,
Works,
;
vol.
637 Briscoe v.
1836,
1,
Bank, 11 Pet.
p.
384;
Q.
Crouch
8 B.
321;
v. Credit Foncier,
1872, 73,
Hamilton’s
Annals of
1795;
1793, 5, 3d
Report,
Cong.
Congress, p.
What was not
the framers of the
Constitu
contemplated
.
tion
not included
judicial power
grant
Campbell,
Florida v.
Georgia,
J.
How. 513.
,
opinion,
dissenting
Marshall,
This view was
C.
adopted
his
apparently
J.,
to the status of Indian
tribes,
decision
Cherokee Nation
302-
Argument
Defendant,
for
State of North Carolina.
rather than
merely adjudge
indebtedness
leaving
op
with
tional
the defendant State to
it will decline
pay
to take
,
at all.
v.
jurisdiction
Kentucky
24 How. 66 ; no
Dennison
sits to
court
determine
law
thesi.
v.
Marye
114
Parsons,
S.U.
330; Broderick v. Morton,
If for suit any collection of a debt its for the a State compulsive to debts confined due be to the directly should com- process contracts, transactions States between upon dealings, plaining or at rate “in due States, any obligations- acquired if 1 trade,” course of Kent’s acquisition possible. Treatise on 297, d; note Commentaries, Langdell’s Equity No. 209 see Fed. Cas. ; Pleading, over controversies between two Jurisdiction more States Court for the Supreme purpose given settling for strife—and not pui-pose disputes allaying fomenting — What surer method of jealousies, quarrels. arousing engen- and retaliations can be conceived than hostilities. dering States ? at Such, such suits between is rate, encouraging the-teaching experience. be forced into
A State cannot her sovereign a but crossbill is consent; presupposes plaintiff already and when the State comes into court of court rightfully, its aid, and invokes she bound is, course, Tier own accord for the rules established administration all the justice &R. A. v. So. individuals. P. Co. Ry. Car., 60 between v. United R. 2 552; Prioleau L. 659 ; Fed. Rep. Eq. Wall. and see also for 7 illustrations of Siren, The v. 10 Brent Bank Pet. 596; these Washington, principles, 15 377; Davis, v. Bank Pet. Metropolis, United States Fed. 15; United States v. 48 251; 10 Ingate, Wall. Rep. v. Fed. Cas. No. United Flint, 15,121; States United States v. ; No. States Union 16,694 v. Fed. Cas. Nat. United Wilder, v. 16,597; Cas. No. United States Fed. Barker, Fed. Bank, 303 DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. v. Defendant, .Argument TJ. S. State of Carolina. 192 North No. Cas. state or 14,520. na Although- government, tional, is barred the statute of limitations, claim barred the statute can assigned government has no not be sued as it more after than on, before validity States v. United Pet. 12; United assignment. Buford, Co., R. N. & St. L. U. S. 125 ; States C. 1 Cooley’s A note 6. Blackstone, 247, contract cannot be if assigned by Tole assignment greater obligation thereby imposed. 811; hurst Ass. Port. Cement 2 K. B. 18 Law Mfrs., Quarter. Review, 10; Conflict of 534; Ed Dicey Laws, Case, S. 595, 600; U. wards Chisholm’s Kearsey, opinion Pollock on ; Ch. J. Dall. 479 294; Jay, Contracts, Hager *15 149 U. Ball 242, 248; S. v. 161 U. S. v. Swayne, Halsey, 72, 80. of The the alarm
. Eleventh Amendment and adoption the decision in the much over case was not so Chisholm of a of loss haled before a court, apprehension dignity being of to as being danger process, pay compelled, by legal debts—the their their fiscal affairs danger having complex out of the taken control officers placed proper’state in the hands of this court. v. 6 Cohens Wheat. Virginia, 246, and see Alexander in The 406, Hamilton Federalist No. 81; on Miller Constitution, Davis’s notes to 382, same, 652, Judson’s Constitutional 653; United 255. History Individuals should not be to allowed enforce for compromises State threat one State. assignment another Taking this action would result in a jurisdiction vast number of similar claims made which would not confined ex being securities clusively but would extend to claims of public all kinds. What then becomes of the reserved of the States rights their own manage domestic affairs? There is scarcely which palled State be thus to the bar of this court.. Even claims been have made which ^Massachusetts Court Supreme of that State as between regarded just, man and but man, which could not enforce for lack of Murdock v. Commonwealth, Grate Co. jurisdiction. 152 28. Massachusetts, is no for such
There absolute jurisdiction necessity 304 1903. Defendant,
Argument
North Carolina.
192
for more
without
we have lived
than
its exer
court;
century
exist is
it does not
made
the fact
probable by
cise;
been
invoked,
it'hasnot previously
although
circumstances
have
rise to it
existed from
The
gave
beginning.
under
action,
noveity
circumstances, is
evi
strong
that it
dence
4 Wall.
Johnson,
groundless Mississippi
Case
A.
25. And
500;
C.
see article
475,
Mogul
(1892),
F.
Carmon
number
Columbia Law Re
Randolph,
“
on
1902, Notes
Suits Between
view, Hay,
States.”
if-
Even
suits can be
a State
bonds so
brought, against
to another State, the
suit
be main
cannot
assigned
present
a suit
tained,-because is
the State of South Dakota and
an individual
all individual bondholders of the
representing
same
the State of
class,
North Carolina and another
all
first
1
bondholders.
representing
Daniel’s
mortgage
Practice,
Am.
6th
ed.
191, note;
Act
Chancery
Judiciary
see
1789,
Coal
11
Co.
Wall.
un
172; but
Blatchford,
der the act of
see
457;
Removal
S.
Cases,
U.
Rose’s
Osborne v. The
Notes, 850;
Bank,
Wheat.
has
been
on the
overruled
that the court would look to
point
will
now look
parties
record
beyond
the result
In
suit.
re
U. S. Fed. Babcock, v. 243, 248; Water Co. 76 Rep. Consolidated Fed. 416. v. Blair, 70 Rep Trustees Board of Act because Judiciary only If this merely be required be- on the Circuit Court controversies confers jurisdiction be to of different tween the citizens ought fortiori, confers so held when the Constitution jurisdiction upon of controversies between two or more States only Amendment indivi- Eleventh suits expressly prohibits ? duals a State against
Nor is it the force of this possible escape argument to the individuals not are saying necessary parties suit. It would lie in the mouth of the scarcely complainant because has elected this, she the suit say bring form Avith the if did, she but, present present parties, would futile, be because objection they are necessaiy parties. Co., 257; Southern U. S. 229, 157 Ry. v. California Pacific 184 Northern Securities U. S. 199. Co., Minnesota Even if the -were to their real parties re-arranged according interest the result of a successful controversy, prosecu- tion'of this suit beto-enable the individual holders willequally of the second bonds collect them from the State mortgage suit her consent, contrary provisions Eleventh Avhich Amendment, would contravene the spirit of the amendment. rule for the construction of a constitutional general is so to construe as to subserve its
provision general pur Tender Wall. Legal Cases, 531, that rule has pose, with been to the Eleventh applied Amendment. liberality Fitts McGhee, 172 U. S. 528 dissent 516, ; J., Bradley, Virginia Cases, 332 Hans v. Coupon ; Louisiana, 1. The Constitution names. prohibits things—not Missouri, Pet. Craig
That which cannot be done cannot be done indi directly of a from rectly suit immunity sovereign easily —the In the Parlement L. R. Belge, P. D. 197, destroyed. libel Avasdismissed public ship although defendant; not a v. M. Avas see Cunningham, sovereign vol. cxoii —20
306 1903.
Argument Defendant, for State of North Carolina. U. 192 S. R., & B. R. 109 S. 446; U. Mighell v. e, Sultan Johor of Q. B. 1 v. 149, 154; Jarbolt 103 U. (1894) Moberly, 580, 585 Em 4 ; Garland, Wall. 338. 334, parte
To sustain this action and with accordance give judgment will be unconstitutional result, accomplish prayer and that indirection. This suit is and commenced for the prosecuted by, . bene
fit of, individuals. New v. Under 108 Louisiana, Hampshire U. S. 89, an 76, individual cannot invoke original juris diction of this court in suit one State by using name of another State cannot maintain a suit State —a another behalf individuals. private facts,
The show .suit clearly commenced, is for benefit prosecuted, solely private bondholders, and in the event of are the sole they beneficiaries recovery after course, suit, deducting, expenses including the fee South Dakota. prohibitions Eleventh can be nullified. not so Amendment easily On the merits the bonds were ; disposed contrary c. Acts statute, 228, North Caro provisions enabling therefore, lina, 55, are, uncollectible. illegal See 35, 3 §§
As to the that whether position bonds complainant were issued sold or not, immaterial to a holder illegally for course, it must be, course, value due the merit through holder, of some antecedent took the complainant only ' bonds after their but for them. maturity, paid nothing in favor of a holder Admitting presumptions negotiable law is that when has been of fraud or proof paper, given comp in the issue of the burden is cast illegality paper, to show it is a for value without purchaser lainant notice and due course. Smith Sac 11 County, Wall. ; 21 How. Collins 397; Combs v. Hodge, Givert, U. S. ; t 50 753 Stewar 5 Lansing, bonds were issued and As these disposed contrary of were and com- statute, enabling they provisions illegal, bonds as after donation, their plainant’s receiving anfi ' casts the burden her to show that some proof upon maturity, v. NORTH SOUTH DAKOTA CAROLINA. *18 Argument Defendant, for
192 U. of North Carolina. in one of her title were innocent for predecessors purchasers not this she has done. value, are the Schafers,
As the
who
whose title com
only persons
these
rests
state bonds
over
plainant
upon, purchased
with
due
and at
interest
attached
a small
coupons
percentage
their face
are
value, they
deprived
protection given
bona
due
value
course. Hulbert v.
purchasers
fide
In indorsement the bonds, upon purporting give the State’s no stock, stock statutory mortgage upon was desig- nated or described as to be way capable identifica- no tion, stock and, therefore, has been particular subjected the lien of a The statute authorized mortgage. mortgage of the holders of the but bonds, favor it has never been exe-
308 TERM, 1903. '.OCTOBER
Argument al. for Defendants Charles Salter et 192 S.U. and the claim which holders cuted, only mortgage have the State' not a lien stock is, upon any particular of action for the owned but a cause breach of contract to In North whose Carolina, give mortgage. law the is to be a mort determined, validity .mortgage to be number of out of a certain gage purporting things, is invalid and in no wise number, other larger designated, ; 609 Waldo v. Iredell L. Belcher, Blackley a. mortgage. ; N. C. 40 86 N. Patrick, Railroad, Stevenson C. ; Holmes v. Whitaker, 113; 119 N. C. Jones Chattel Mort v. New Orleans Gas 144: 56; Co., Woods, gages, Kilgore *19 The claim on not in behalf of is mortgage stronger equity than at because in order to constitute an law, mort equitable it is to identify subject-matter. gage, equally necessary H. L. v. 165 v. 10 Walker U. Halroyd Marshall, 189; Brown, S. 19 Enc. and authorities. The 654; same Law, page rule in of a con actions for. prevails specific performance tract. v. Third 162 N. Y. Bank, National 336. Lighthouse The law be statu is the whether same, alleged mortgage tory Liens, ; Tycross Drey or on 106 conventional. Jones v. § 5 Ch. Div. 605. fus,
If the court has and cause, complainant is entitled to recover is not entitled to she recover anything, v. interest overdue United States North Caro- coupons. 136
lina, U. with whom Mr. Russell, Mr. Daniel L. Marion Butler were on for brief, Mr. Russell defendant and Alfred and the Charles Salter second bondholders. mortgage and bondholders The first second mortgage interested being funds must be made to the suit, parties cases on citing brief and Jones 1369; Wilkins complainant’s Mortgages, § 1 Mer. 262 Hancock v. 22 N. ; Hancock, Y. 568; Frye, 58 N. Y. Rankin v. 681; v. O'Dougherty, Carpenter Major, 9 280. The sec Missouri, 297; Thayer Iowa Campbell, in ond is solido separate independent mortgage for each bond. See cases cited in com of ten shares mortgage motives of the donor brief. making gift plainant’s NORTH CAROLINA.- DAKOTA v.. of the Court. Opinion to the See cases State are not material. cited complainant brief. As to the complainant’s repudiation turpitude of a to Louisiana v. debts, see pay obligation Charleston, U. S. 445 Jumel, 740; Murray after statement, foregoing making Mr. Justice Brewer, delivered the of the court. opinion be no
There can reasonable doubt of the validity is no bonds and There mortgages controversy. challenge the statutes were authorized. those they By treasurer became statutes the was when it directed, necessary for to borrow money payment subscription, pre- bonds and or more advertise one pare coupon newspapers sealed the terms offered ad- most proposals, accept no event should the vantageous provided bonds be for less than their sold value. advertisement par .The wjere but was no bids were made, received, the bonds delivered for the company payment railroad subscription, each bond dollar for dollar. was Upon placed statutory It true no into the pledge mortgage. money paid and thence out of com- railroad treasury treasury at the substance of the transaction pany, looking yet (and has substance rather than equity regard the transac- form), tion same as was the had been the though *20 company only had a thousand dollars in bidder, the in placed treasury pay- ment bond and of each received that thousand dollars back from the for treasury payment subscription ten shares is true stock. It also that there was no formal issue of cer- tificates the to the but by that company was a matter of between the to the arrangement parties subscription. as a
State’s stockholder was not right lack abridged by and fact it has been certificates, dividends on the receiving stock as certificates had exactly though been issued. The stat- ute that with each also several bond provided a-deed of-mort- amount of for an stock, the equal by treasurer and gage signed the should constitute a by comptroller, countersigned part “ the bond be and transferable like manner with it, and that shall all the further, have force and mortgage effect
Opinion of the Court. S.U. law and without actual equity, registered mortgages While no to registry.” certificate of stock was be attached to with the or bond go the statute that evidently contemplated the should endorsed on the bond have the mortgage same force and effect. made when the endorsement was Hence, bond issued the State it was tantamount a separation and identification of number of named therein. It shares that this means of cannot be State having provided giving vthe shares each bond security corresponding mortgage of the lien on stock can now prevent attaching that shares had been no certificate no' ground separated to refer to 98 of It is transferred. unnecessary chap. that was in the nature of an offer to Laws of for act one 1879, it does contain a of out- recognition although compromise, obligations. standing can be the title of South
Neither there respecting any question bonds. are not held Dakota to these They as in the case New owners, representative individual were U. they given Hampshire Louisiana, true It is that the to the State. and absolutely outright gift one. considered rare be unexpected Apparently view of ex 'óf South Dakota was passed the .statute the donor made under the gift probably gift, pected tha,t would Dakota South bring not unreasonable expectation bonds, and to enforce these North Carolina -action an owner benefit his action enure that'Such might, which made, motive with gift bonds. But like other or the not affect does validity ques bad, whether good In Mc has been often ruled. This tion jurisdiction. Pet. objection v. Smalley, Donald in controversy the title property ground it would belief that in.the to the plaintiff had conveyed been state it would not Federal when be sustained justice Chief this observation with overruled,, was court; Marshall (p. 621): “ the court, before all laid which is This testimony, plaintiff, a sale and think, conveyance we shows, *21 not have could main- on McDonald both parties. was binding DAKOTA v. 311 CAROLINA. NORTH Opinion Court. 192 IT. S. nor Arthur a his bis Me suit for land. debt,
tained action was re- His it consideration title to was extinguished, motives which induced him ceived. The to make the contract, can whether have influence on its censurable, no. justifiable had sufficient with were "validity. They influence them, had a himself, he to act can- A court right upon not enter them into when deciding jurisdiction. to be a
conveyance real and the real as transaction, appears well as nominal are suit, of different parties citizens States.” v.
See also Smith
How.
v. Balti
Kernochen,
198;
Barney
;
6Wall. 280 Dickermam
more,
v. Northern Trust
176 U. S.
Co,
In this
Mr.
181, 190, 191, 192.
Brown,
last case
Justice
speak
said
court,
for the
:
ing
“ If the law concerned itself
the motives of
new
parties
with
would be introduced into suits which
complications
might
their
obscure
real
If the
merits.
debt secured
a.
seriously
is no defence to a
due,
foreclosure that
mortgage
justly
was animated
or other bad motive.
hostility
mortgagee
Davis v.
N. J.
491;
v. Earl Win
Flagg,
Dering
Eq.
1 Cox Ch.
McMullen v.
Fed.
chelsea,
318;
Ritchie,
Rep.
v. East
253, 261; Toler
Tenn. &c.
Fed.
Railway,
Rep.
67.
.
. The
furnish a number of
reports
cases.
is well settled that
Thus,
a mere
analogous
colorable
for the
conveyance
title in
property,
a
purpose
vesting
non-resident and
him to
suit in a Federal
enabling
court,
bring
will not
if
confer
but
jurisdiction;
conveyance appear
be a real
the court
transaction,
will
not,
deciding
into motives which actuated
question
jurisdiction, inquire
parties making
v.
conveyance. McDonald Smalley,
312 Opinion of the 192 Court. U. S. 2 Sumn. 123; French, 251; 9 Wall. Wilson, Briggs 594 ; Galbraith, Ins. Co., Paine, Cooper Catlett v. Pacific 390.” Wool. Monell, Wash. 546 Johnson v. ; as it had The title Dakota is as re- of South perfect though from North Carolina: We have, these ceived bonds directly with an the case of a State before us therefore, unquestionable State, secured a issued another title bonds by by mortgage into this to that State, of railroad stock coming belonging those of court and jurisdiction compel payment invoking to the satis- of the bonds and a property subjection mortgaged faction of the debt. and to of such a this court controversy,
Has jurisdiction ? that relief jurisdiction extent it Obviously what may grant bonds could fact that the donor these is by not affected a bill of not invoke it. foreign exchange payee a court of. State of in the Federal the drawer sue riot oust the court of does jurisdic- are but that citizens, both holder if the latter be a tion of an action subsequent by is de- another State. The citizen of question and not that by present parties, the status of the termined too, Obviously, controversy. of the thing holders prior If anything judicial cognizance. is one of subject-matter due on money is claim for as it considered justiciable can be it matter does justiciable if it promise pay a written —arid ac- be honestly title, providing plaintiff acquires how the n to take juris- inconsistent seem strangely It would quired? Carolina North Dakota an South action diction of_ former, directly to. latter made to pay a promise made arid, on a like promise of an action refuse jurisdiction, donated to the by him sold or individual and to. an latter former. representa- fact that arises from the question A preliminary defendants,- made are classes borfds two tives of. thousand thirty of the is a relief asked sale a part thqt Company, Railroad Carolina North of the of stock stories in satisfaction Carolina, North belohging It is insisted stock. mortgages all discharge v. NORTH CAROLINA. SOUTH DAKOTA Opinion Court. named individuals, although that these owners the bonds, are adverse defendants, occupying position fact effect of their parties that the presence nullification, is Amendment, the Eleventh .practical relief by judgment against to individuals giving State. one donor Apparently expectation -South bonds himself by’ was that some retained way Dakota and relief would be obtained North placed judgment , in the suit South Carolina commenced Dakota. But we *23 are not necessary think that these individuals parties-defend- relief given and that no should be them to classes ant, of The statute under they bondholders represent. that with each of the was executed bonds-
mortgage provided a for of of a like amount stock should be exe- mortgage deed a is, therefore, cuted the State. There by separate mortgage of bonds, shares of stock on each one these ten a decree can be satisfied of foreclosure and fully mortgage one would a that, of the ten shares stock. No doubt if sale to a note, of stock was attached-ms the- pledge certificate without be satisfied a sale stock any could pledge him- as between rights purchaser determination such manifest pur- self and other stockholders. was the And. It' that each bond- legislation. contemplated of this pose n receive a stock which -he could security should realize holder of a suit to all delay on without the other expense .which would necessary and the be corporation parties. stockholders authorized by at the sale to be this decree will The-purchaser with full title of the State to the become vested number stock He will mortgage. shares of stated occupy same relation to the position corporate that other' property and have whatever occupy, stockholders have. rights they for a necessary It full satisfaction mortgage is not one bond- bonds that other another mortgage upon of these what foreclosed, determining also or that a decree be entered which he will virtue of the stock have purchaser rights these individual defend- obtains the sale. So at far-then Opinion of the Court.
ants are will concerned,- the suit be dismissed costs against with South Dakota. ' now Coming to the right South Dakota to maintain this suit North Carolina, we remark that it is a controversy between two States; that sec. 2, art. Ill, the Constitution “ controversies, this court is given original jurisdiction of be- tween two or. more' States.” In Missouri v. Illinois and the Sanitary District 180 U. Chicago, Mr. Justice Shiras, court, reviewed speaking at length the history of this incorporation into provision the Federal Constitution and the decisions rendered -to respect with jurisdiction, closing these 240): (p. words “The cases cited show that such has jurisdiction been exer- cised cases boundaries and involving jurisdiction over lands inhabitants, and their cases directly affecting the prop- erty and interests of State.” rights case is- one “directly affecting the property present of a and interests State.” rights of this
(cid:127)Although repetition review is unnecessary, two or are worthy three matters The original notice. draft of the reported Constitution convention gave to the Senate of all disputes controversies “between two or *24 States, respecting' jurisdiction niore or territory,” Court Supreme jurisdiction “controversies between two or such as shall except territory more or States, regard jurisdic- A claim money a being controversy tion." for. of a jus- due and one of the nature, ticiable most common of controversies, fall naturally to within the would seem of the scope jurisdic- intended to be conferred tion thus upon Supreme Court. revision subsequent In the convention the power given to respect the Senate controversies between to the States out as well as the was stricken limitation jurisdiction court, it leaving of this in. now found'in the language Constitution n without of “contro- jurisdiction any limitation versies between more two States.” or. n .as Constitution stood also originally gave to this CAROLINA.- DAKOTA NORTH Opinion of the Court. 192 TJ. a State and “between citi of controversies jurisdiction v. Georgia, clause Chisholm Under that State.” of another
zens a citizen of which it was held that decided, in 2 Dall. was in this' court an action assumpsit maintain might one State of that decision the Inconsequence State. another against “the was adopted, provides'that Amendment Eleventh be United States'shall not construed-to judicial power in law or commenced or equity, prosecuted suit any extend to United States citizens of another State'; one will foreign or State.” It be subjects citizens byor im only granted this amendment to a State that perceived individual, and did not from suit affect munity between two or over controversies more States. this was Chief Justice said Marshall In respect Wheat. 264, 406: Virginia, Cohens “ , our at that, a It is history, part adoption indebted; States were all"the and the Constitution, greatly these debts be might prosecuted apprehension serious in- courts formed Federal very objection court, were maintained instituted; Suits strument. The alarm was and, general; quiet jurisdiction. that were so this entertaine'd, amend- extensively apprehensions ment was state Congress, adopted by proposed motive That its to maintain the sov- legislatures. State from attend a of a degradation supposed ereignty before the tribunal of the nation, appearance compulsory from the terms the amendment. It does not inferred controversies between or more two be- comprehend and a tween a State State. The foreign jurisdiction of extends to these in these court still cases: and a-State may be sued. We still must ascribe the amendment, then, to some other cause than the aof State. -There is no dignity difficulty who inhibited from com- cause. Those were finding one which suit or from mencing prosecuting of the amendment, before the might be commenced adoption *25 There be its creditors. were who probably might persons or sister States would fear that to foreign not much reason TERM, 1903. Opinion of the Court. and there was amount, to considerable reason any creditors in those cases, court because it retain the jurisdiction be essential amend- preservation peace.
might to suits extended commenced or therefore, ment, prosecuted but not to those individuals, States.” brought by by after to' case, In the same the two classes of referring cases, which was in vested the courts of the Union, jurisdiction said. he 378): (p. “ In the second' class, jurisdiction depends entirely character In this are con parties. comprehended or between two more between a States, troversies State,’ of another citizens between a State and foreign or If citizens these be the it States, subjects.’ parties entirely- what be the Be it subject unimportant controversy. these have a what constitutional to come may, parties right courts of into the the Union.”
In Massachusetts, Rhode Island Pet. 657, this court in a suit sustained jurisdiction one equity brought by another determine as to dispute boundary, in Mr. the course of the Justice said opinion, by Baldwin, in of a from suit an in- respect immunity sovereign dividual (p. 720): “ Those their highest sovereign capacity, , . convention of thereof, the Con people adopted stitution, made they respectively United over judicial States controversies between power grant States. the Constitution, two more was ordained By this cases where a State was a judicial power, party, be exercised this court as one of should original jurisdi . The States waived their from ction exemption judicial power, Wheat. and inherent (6 380,)'as sovereigns by original own their exercise over grant themselves .right, its. but which cases, would they inferior grant this tribunal. this court has By grant, acquired over this their own cause, consent and dele parties as their authority ; agent executing gated judicial , of the United States in the cases power specified.” And, reference to the extent again, jurisdiction of : 721) (p. *26 v. NORTH CAROLINA. DAKOTA Opinion of the 192'U. S. Court- “ between two cannot be States, That it is a controversy does in ex- terms, and Constitution not, denied; though two to all controversies between or tend power judicial it in terms excludes none whatever be States, may yet, -more or their nature subject.” Carolina, 136 U. we 211, States North S. took
In United
the nited
of an action
II
States
jurisdiction
brought
against
bonds,
to recover interest on
and decided the
North Carolina
was
its merits.
is true there
,It
case upon
nothing
but
said
to the matter
in reference
of jurisdiction,
opinion
621,
143 U.
642:
Texas,
States
S.
United
“
the framers
the Con
court show that
The-cases
instrument, for the
de
did
judicial
stitution
provide, by
in law
between two or
of all cases
and
termination
equity
morp
those
States, including
boundary.
involving questions
determination of
Did
for the
provide
judicial
they omit
States and one
between the United
arising
controversies
is' in
This
effect
more of the States
Union?
question
Carolina,
States v. North
In Rees we 116, 117, v. City of said: “ that this court hot the We are of the has opinion power a tax be levied of these direct payment judgments. for and raise burdens is money This impose highest power to raise exercised, and is first, attribute money sovereignty, ; second, and, only legis- for power public purposes It that has not been is ex- power lative authority only. tended to the power Especially beyond judiciary. of a State the ex- the Federal assume place judiciary at so once delicate so ercise of this important.” authority v. The Wall. Commissioners, also Heine Levee See 661; Garrett, Meriwether supra. reference made to United States
In this connection in which an was made How. Guthrie, application to com a mandamus Secretary Treasury *28 and of official in which we said salary, the payment pel 303): (p. “ for our determination The only legitimate inquiry this : us is under the Whether, before the case organization or law, known any the by principle Federal government, the Court be asserted Circuit power there ean the District of in this or Columbia, court, States 'United withdrawal of a or sum sums of from the command money of the United to be States, satisfaction of Treasury applied or controverted claims the United States? disputed This is for our deter question, very presented question and its mination; statement wrouldseem to with simple carry most it the unavoidable its ne nay, startling considerations— should be some unless this gation, -prevented positive by ;. for would occur, it command priori, every controlling round or by fenced shielded fixed that a mind, treasury, but administration, modes and rules established TERM,'
Opinion of the Court. 192 U. S. could number be any subjected description demands, and sustained asserted undefined and through undefinable discretion of the would courts, constitute a feeble and inade for the and inevitable necessities of the quate provision great nation. The under such a un regime, or, rather, government der such an all absence of if at rule, would, all, practicable administered, not ordained by great departments Constitution and the modes therein laws, guided pre but the uncertain and scribed, ac contradictory perhaps tion of the enforcement courts, of their views private interests.” in this connection
Further, be noticed Gordon United in which States, this court declined to take of an from the Court of under the jurisdiction Claims, appeal statute as stood at time of on the decision, ground there was not vested the act of power Congress enforce its We from the judgment. quote following opinion, prepared by Taney which was the last Justice Chief 702, 704): (pp. “ The award of execution is a and an essential part, part .a court passed every judgment exercising judicial power. It is no. sense of it. without judgment, term, legal Without such an award the would be judgment inoperative without a rem nugatory, leaving aggrieved'party . . Indeed, no constitutional law has edy. principle more established or than to, been adhered firmly constantly the one above stated —that that this court no is, has jurisdic case where it cannot render judgment legal tion and when term; sense depends upon legislature into; effect or at the Con to carry not, opinion pleasure re See also In and La Abra 148 U. S. Sanborn, gress.” 423, 456. United Mining. Company Silver on the one hand the have, then, We language general “ contro over in this court Constitution vesting or more juris between two States,” history versies *29 convention, of Chisholm the cases dictional clause v States and United North Carolina States United Georgia, over actions court sustained which this (in jurisdiction Michigan, v. NORTH CAROLINA. SOUTH DAKOTA ' Opinion of the Court from a manifest trend of other recover money State,) of of some decisions, controversies necessity way ending- fact this and the that claim for the between payment of its oh the certain nature; other, is one justiciable money of this of individual of court, expression opinions justices a for a State, enforcing judgment money against difficulty lack reason ordinary property private subject execution, seizure and absolute a court to inability-of a of taxes by levy legislature. (cid:127)compel Notwithstanding it surround the embarrassments which is directly question to be determined and have before the case is presented is sufficientto state but for concluded, present finally with its difficulties. question and this case a the sale
There mortgage property, under a foreclosure that may satisfy property plaintiff’s would be no If should be result there neces claim. That the the:State. for a sity personal judgment-against foreclosure of the is a necessary mortgage party v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad Christian settled by a decree for is satisfied by U. S. 233. Equity Company, sale of the property, leaving foreclosure mortgaged to be deter over any deficiency, judgment question if, we often And have surely if arises. when, ever, mined of an action one State this held, has’jurisdiction to be there would seem no of land, another to recover tract of one to enforce per delivery doubt sonal property. after
A therefore, entered, which, decree will, finding in suit to amount due on the bonds be twenty- coupons interest seven thousand four hundred dollars (no ($27,400), recoverable, Carolina, United States v. North being that the hundred shares of same are secüred one 211), the stock the North Railroad Carolina Company, belonging- to the State of North order that said Carolina, shall of North with costs suit Carolina said amount pay of Jan State of Monday South or before the 1st Dakota on an order of of such default uary, payment him sell court, directing the Marshal sale be issued to vot. cxcii—21
322 Day, White, J., McKenna, JJ., dissenting. The Chief Justice, of of at auction all the interest the State North public Carolina hundred of the in and to one shares stock of capital the North such sale to at Carolina Railroad be made Company, east front in'this door Building city, -notice Capitol public to be of such sale advertisements once a for week six given weeks in some in the of daily paper published city Raleigh, North also in some Carolina, and in the daily paper published of city Washington.
And to this either suit parties may apply the foot of as occasion decree, may require. White, Mr. with whom Justice concurred Me. Chief Jus- tice Me. Justice McKenna Fullee, Me. Justice Day, 'dissenting.
The in decision this case seems to me to an ex disregard and absolute of the Constitution. press prohibition The facts there, are the court. As, stated opinion however, are deemed me some facts to be which material, are not referred it is to, to make a proposed case, summary and then the reasons which control me. express
In the and 1855 years bonds of negotiable the State of North Carolina were in issued to aid the construction of of the North Carolina Railroad railway Company were for the stock of that exchanged bonds company. went into the hands of individuals and the stock exchanged into the of the State, and was declared passed possession in be the hands of the State to secure the pledged payment in the bonds question. aid was
In similar to anothér given railway, North Carolina. each Western for Bonds, value' par dollars, thousand one two and a half aggregating nearly issued dollars, were the State. All the bonds, millions act after the an were issued passage, declared act, were as stated secured, legislature, Railroad of the stock of the North Carolina by mortgage held the State and already, entirety, pledged which had been bonds all issued security-of previously v. NORTH DAKOTA CAROLINA. (cid:127)SOUTH JJ., dissenting. Justice, J., The Chief White, McKenna, Day, 192 U. Eailroad. how- the North Carolina The stock, in aid but each of the. possession remained ever, ten contained endorsement issued bonds thereafter the North Carolina Eailroad shares of Company stock for the were of the State security pay- the hands mortgaged bonds. ment of each *31 of of disastrous a result the as consequences
Presumably, the financial and events which followed, the civil war the in Carolina were the of North affairs of State profoundly the as it accrued had not interest The State embarrassed. paid of the North Carolina in aid Eailroad. the bonds issued bn bonds issued whatever the It in no had effect interest paid Eailroad, and, indeed, North Carolina favor of the Western of on its the interest had defaulted payment generally the for were State debt. Statutes by providing public passed its affairs, of its financial rehabilitate so adjustment debt that when the state was the in order credit, readjusted of all and its for the benefit creditors, State its,people might, and for the of the interest on be able provide principal pay was those debt. The made thé adjustment by public accepted in aid of the North Carolina Eail- the bonds issued holding of sum interest and and waived a unpaid road very large they of with a reiteration bonds, received new accompanied Eailroad owned of the North Carolina of all stock pledge been held the State as had by always State, by all bonds of that issue. It is of for the payment security record that the from the adjustment be inferred proposed creditors the other was generally accepted fiscal affairs were and as a placed consequence it sound certain is that the basis. Be adjust-, may, of a vast ment was holders majority accepted bonds issued in aid the'Western North Carolina Eailroad, their bonds and took and that such holders surrendered old cent for of the face new bonds of the per twenty-five new bonds not to be these bonds, value of their purporting of the North the stock secured Carolina any mortgage Eailroad. acts re- after
In 1901, passage years twenty-two ..the J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., The White, dissenting. Chibe ferred their to,-and as above stated, Simon acceptance Schafer brother, his firm Schafer & composing Brothers, bankers brokers of New York, the-city addressed a North petition legislature Carolina. Therein it of. was that the recited named were parties their holders, own and as hundred right trustees, two nearly thousand fifty dollars of the bonds issued aid -the Western' North Carolina Railroad attached to which were Company, unpaid than interest for more years. coupons thirty petitioners declared these bonds were all the bonds of substantially then the series because holders thereof had outstanding It of 1879. stated that accepted arrangement was been such had the vast arrangements accepted majority who held such bonds others reason the financial stress at because those time, creditors knew^that Carolina Railroad the stock North to secure mortgaged was of no avail since bonds its value at purpose, time of the was not the bonds adjustment adequate pay in aid of the North Carolina Railroad, issued favor which was first It recited that had pledged. petitioners *32 of the not availed because they adjustment preferred waiting of the credit of the State, a restoration and trusted that the North stock of the Carolina Railroad might ultimately prove bonds as reduced, the issued favor of the pay adequate and Carolina the small amount of Railroad, North bonds as a result the It was remained adjustment. outstanding, that this had been that in declared accomplished; consequence amount of the North Carolina the reduced Railroad bonds the about the and retirement adjustment, thereby brought of the of all the bonds Western North Carolina Rail- effected the amount or small held the represented by road except the the stock of Carolina Railroad held by petitioners, North be if would both series State, sold, and adequate pay the of the in favor State. that the balance Reciting peti- leave were aware that their and those they represented tioners could be the enforced State judicially claims against Federal that or was courts, the state prayer either made to their bonds be pay might principal appropriation SOUTH DAKOTA NORTH': CAROLINA. J., Day, JJ.,
192 White, Justice, McKenna, The Chief dissenting. interest,.or in default accumulated an act be passed that suit the courts to enforce the lien authorizing mortgage to exist on the stock of the North Carolina asserted Railroad. of this The was not petition prayer granted. the failure to act following
Shortly favorably upon pe- tition referred the act of the to, of South Da- just legislature set out It court, will kota, opinion passed. other observed that, among things, empowered gov- ernor to made the State of bonds accept choses in gifts and authorized action, when attorney State, general were suit in the accepted, name of bring gifts to enforce and for that same, payment “to purpose to be counsel associated with him in such suits or ac- employ with shall tions, who, liim, fully represent State, shall be entitled to reasonable out compensation (italics mine) recoveriescind collectionsvnsuch suits and actions.” There- Schafer addressed Simon the letter to the Hon. Charles H. a member of from Burke, South Dakota, which is Congress in full in the of the court. It suffices to reproduced opinion that that letter ten bonds were say given of South it was mentioned Dakota, especially was made because Schafer was aware that he could gift not sue the State of North whilst the Carolina, State of South Dakota could do so. The letter also contained the suggestion, as an inducement to an acceptance presumably were if the bonds enforced .ten State of South Da- b}^ other of similar bonds be made. kota, The gifts might bonds were of South governor Dakota, accepted at- of that State filed the torney general thereupon bill. present defendant were the State of North parties Carolina, sued as all the holders of person bonds representing issued in aid of the North Railroad Carolina and a sued as person rep- resentative of holders bonds issued in outstanding *33 aid of the Carolina Railroad. Western North The of prayer the bill was in for a decree the substance State of North of the of the bonds Carolina for the amount principal for an en- interest; for accrued than more thirty years’ on to exist the stock of asserted forcement of mortgage White, J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ.,.dissenting. The Chief North Carolina Railroad held Company State; a decree that the holders of the bonds declaring issued of the favor North Carolina Railroad had lost their Company lien of whole stock their reason prior acceptance of the under- the act of and the compromise taking new bonds them in thereof. It was, pursuance however, that in event it should be found that the lien of prayed such on' the bondholders stock had not been waived, stock be ordered sold free from all encumbrances to satisfy claims of the lienholders thereon, that respective distribu- tion be made of- the stock them ac- proceeds among cording priority.
The State answered, jurisdiction challenging court to entertain and also various bill, defences urging merits.
The the bonds person issued in aid joined representing the North Carolina Railroad made no appearance. Charles who made defendant as Salter, representative of the bonds in aid of holders issued the Western North Car- olina Railroad, answered, all the substantially al- admitting “ but bill, be bill dis- legations praying plaintiff’s with costs, missed unless the court shall decree that all the to the second stock be sold for the benefit subject mortgage of all the holders of said second bonds.” mortgage
The court now decides that it has because of jurisdiction, section second of the third article delegation, “ to the United Constitution, States over con- judicial power two or more between States,” troversies because tbe to this court over jurisdiction cases in which original grant Whilst shall be if party. conceding in aid the bonds issued of the North Carolina holders Rail- áre would be necessary parties ousted, road are since held that bondholders necessary parties, be a sale enforce por- there complainant’s rights held Carolina, subject of the stock of North tion therein of the bonds. holders of such prior rights will therefore, which will entered the Staté decree ádjudge North to be indebted to South Carolina Dakota *34 DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. White, J., Day, JJ., U. Justice, McKenna, The Chief dissenting. of of the' the ten with bonds, amount more than principal interest. The will accrued decree direct the sale thirty years’ in the North Carolina stock Railroad held Company in favor of State, the holders subject prior pledge of the bonds of the North Carolina Railroad. The question of a decree is in reserved, as a result of the deficiency case, sale, the debt decreed the State should be extin- not guished.
With this summary facts, and the de- pleadings, cision of the court I mind, shall now state reasons me to dissent, all of which be compel may embraced the two which I shall examine folloAving general propositions under : The absolute of separate want headings (A) power in the court to render a decree betAveen the two on States cause of action sued The want on; render (B) power the decree Avhichis noAVdirected entered, to.be because absence of essential Avhose Avould oust parties presence juris- diction and the relief Avhatever impotency grant ány absence of such parties.
(A.) The absolute want in the court render a power decree be- tween the two States the cause action sued on. The
First. this court to award a power decree against of North Carolina is based on the provision section third article of the Constitution, second .the extend “ of the United States over judicial power ing controversies two or more betAveen and to the States,” to this delegation over such original controversies. If Averethe provisions question ones on the only subject be more difficult to that the might Federal deny judicial power embraced this Those controversy. provisions, however, do alone, stand since be considered in they connection must Aviththe Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, providing “ of the United judicial power States shall not be con strued to extend to suit or laiv any commenced or equity, one of the United States .prosecuted citizens another citizens or subjects any state.” foreign 32$ TERM, 1903. JJ., J., Justice, McKenna, Day,
White, dissenting. Chief The is which the case involves not what in a question generic be considered a sensé between controversy but claim asserted whether the here particular Dakota is in view such a South It is also controversy. that the not Whether a observed be- question controversy *35 tween States not rise from a debt as the re- originating a sult of direct transaction but between is whether one can a claim asserted another State a acquire against of that or of or an citizen another State and as a alien, result sue create a it, between States upon controversy thereby in a constitutional Indeed, sense. is narrower question than since this, this case the debtor had alleged years the transfer before of the claim in while was question, yet owned by individuals, debt, declined had recognize refused as the result of a between payment thereof, controversy its itself and creditors. alleged
I it to be an take rule of constitutional construc- elementary no tion that one the Constitution is to be provision segre- from others, all the and to be considered but gated alone, all the are to be provisions bearing particular upon subject into' view and to be so to effectuate brought interpreted of the instrument. If,.in great purposes following-this it be found -that an asserted construction rule, one pro- vision the Constitution if would, neutralize a adopted, posi- tive another of that instrument, then prohibition provision it results that erroneous, such asserted construction is since its enforcement would effect to mean, the Constitu- give thereof. but to mind tion, cannot es- destroy My portion an individual if, conclusionthat wherever has a claim, cape he tort, State, whether contract or trans- may, by to another into play judicial ferring bring power then claim, of United to enforce such States prohibition is a contained in the Eleventh Amendment mere letter, with- is said out force.. This because no without is spirit escape if seen from the conclusion the application prohibition the creditor of a solely depend willingness whether citizen or and the 'State, alien, transfer, docility transfer, another State cupidity accepting DAKOTA v. NORTH CAROLINA. J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., dissenting. S. White U. The Chief have no will whatever. And this becomes efficacy .provision when the Amendment Eleventh doubly cogent history and the is considered is borne mind. purpose adoption It is familiar that the amendment because of was adopted the decision of this court in Chisholm Georgia, 2 Dall. that the holding grant judicial power United States to determine controversies between a State a citizen of another State vested a con determine authority wherein a citizen of a State asserted a claim troversy another State. That the of the amendment was to purpose remove the assertion such a claim is possibility aptly shown from the of Mr. Chief Justice passage opinion Marshall in Cohens 6 Wheat. in the Virginia, 264, quoted of the court in this opinion case, saying (p. 406): “ It is a of our at the part that, history, adoption all the Constitution, States were and the greatly indebted; that these debts apprehension might prosecuted Federal formed a serious courts, to that instru very objection *36 ment. Suits were and instituted; the court maintained its The alarm was jurisdiction. to and, the general; quiet ap that were so this amend prehensions extensively entertained, ment was and proposed state Congress, adopted by ” legislatures.
As the of the amendment was to purpose the en- prohibit forcement of individual claims the several States against by means of the of the United and judicial power States, as the amendment was of made subsequent judicial grant power Constitution, amendment by the whole qualified grant of to the extent judicial to power render it necessary impossi- ble indirection' to escape of the avowed operation pur- which the of pose people United States expressed the amendment. adopting How, declared Chief Justice could the Marshall, of the adoption have amendment quieted the apprehensions to concerning enforce right private claims if States, against was left after the power open amendment to do if so, were transferred to only they another ? State It is also to be observed that the construction now causesthe given States to judicial power United embrace TERM, 1903. Day, JJ., dissenting. The Chief
White, Justice, 192 U: S. J., McKenna, claim'snot within even the reach of the ruling Chisholmv. for that case decided that under the Georgia, only grant a. citizen of one sue another power might State. But under the rule of now construction, announced, not claims only held citizens of other States and but aliens, those held by a citizen of the State, if enforcement, becojne only capable the holders of such after claims, the State has refused to pay them, choose sell or make thereof to another found gift to become a evade a willing constitutional party plan inserted of all provision the States. protection Let that be me, arguendo, a case grant conceived may where one can be Constitution so construed provision as to render another and nugatory provision. Even applicable can such an doctrine no have relation to the case impossible hand. The decisions this rendered court, since the Eleventh have held that Amendment, that amendment em- consistently bodied a of national whose enforcement principle public policy, not avoided indirection be this may subterfuge. Ought to be rule policy disregarded,. by endowing public every stale and State with unenforce- power speculating claims of individuals other not able thus only but also the fiscal doing injustice, overthrowing independence between destroying harmony them every it which was declared of the Constitution to purpose es- tablish cement ? Such a from the departure provisions Amendment, the Eleventh the rule of national public pol- embodies, be sustained icy assumption that would unduly independence curtailing them the States deny several right aid enforcing, by claims of the Federal other judicial States ac- power, individuals. For from would private quired assumption all this, amount States only enjoy *37 free from essential coercion as to the claims being privilege and have the their individuals, financial power manage n affairs at the mere the other States. This pleasure is to that for of the say, purpose preserving rights must be those rights destroyed. It is that number of true cases decided greater v. DAKOTA CAROLINA. 331 NORTH Day; dissenting. J., Justice, McKenna, JJ., White, Chief U. S. 192 to enforce a claim against court concerning right private citi controversies where suit concerned brought by were therefore ex who of other States aliens, persons zens Amendment. An the terms of the Eleventh within pressly were de of those will show cases, however, they analysis the mere that the ivas who sued cided, not.upon ground person the Eleventh but within the broad Amendment, proposi tion that, effect of that claims of amendment, private individuals could not be enforced and that in State, this constitutional limitation the court would look upholding at the real nature of the of the controversy, irrespective parties on record. If it were found so effect the by doing of the of the relief would be to enforce consequence granting the Federal claim of a individ judicial power private ual relief would be denied. I content with the reference in the to the myself cases margin leading of this & andcome at to consider the character,1 once adjudica of this court tions rendered in two cases which related directly Eleventh of the' operation Amend prohibitions ment to the United States judicial over grant power controversies between States, and two other cases which di concerned the effect of the rectly prohibitions Eleventh Amendment suits who were within brought by persons but were not grant judicial power within embraced referred category persons to in specifically the Eleventh Amendment. The first two cases referred to are New Hamp shire v. Louisiana and New York v. Louisiana. The opinion 1 Hollingsworth Virginia, (1798) v. 378; 3 Dall. Osborn Bank, v. (1824) 738, 849; 9 Bank, Briscoe v. Wheat. (1837) 257, 11 321; Pet. Louisiana v. Jumel, (1883) 711; 107 U. S. Poindexter Greenhow, v. (1885) 114 270, U. S. 286; Marye Parsons, v. (1885) 114 325; Hagood U. S. Southern, v. (1886) 52; Ayers, In re 117 U. S. (1887) 443, 123 504; U. S. Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., R. (1890) 133 233, 243; U. S. Louisiana ex rel. N. Y. Guar anty & Indemnity Steele, Co. v. Pennoyer 230; (1890) 134 U. S. v. McCon naughy, (1891) Tyler, (1893) 1; Reagan In re 140 164, U. S. 190; S.U. v. Farmers’ Co., Loan & Trust 362, Donald, (1894) 388; 154 U. S. Scott v. (1897) 58; Wesley, Smyth Tindal (1897) 204, U. 219; S.U. Ames, (1898) McGhee, (1899) 518; Fitts *38 JJ., dissenting. U. J., Chiee McKenna, Justice, Day,
White
Mr.
in both was delivered
Chief Justice
the
Waite,
in
To seems adjudication conclusÍAre It in noAvhere. the broadest question determined way of the Eleventh Amendment prohibitions controlled the as to grant controversies betAveen judicial poiver the States t so as to exclude the of tha a possibility State grant vesting - form, Avith authority to set directly at indirectly, the Eleventh na,ught The case Avas Amendment. decided, nature of the-title of upon particular the bonds and cou asserted pons States of Hampshire Noav NeAV since it York, Avasconceded 'but for that, a Constitution, title'such as Avouldhave rise to propounded an ad given equate cause óf action. The of the court AAras ruling that, suits a State claims individuals were private of. absolutely prohibited Eleventh Amendment, such char acter of claim could not be converted into a be controversy TERM, 1903. McKenna, Day, JJ., dissenting.
White, J., Justice, The Chief S.U. made since tween thus be to do so States, justiciable, which the Eleventh would destroy Amend prohibition if State ment I do not one embodied. perceive, not en between in- the States, a controversy constitutional gender out of claims sense, respect between arising dealings it was how and’individuals, competent Dakota, South to create such a controversy acquisition. of a claim class whose it was enforcement the purpose Amendment to Eleventh It is to prohibit. effectually that in the cases referred to observed did’ not that a virtue of its existence as such, deny sovereign would have inherent possessed pot power prosecute another State the claims citizens, that’ such it would have constituted be prosecution controversy in the tween States international those words. significance held the .court that controversies But between’ did not embrace of that constitutional sense, character, rights *40 of the of the Eleventh because prohibitions Amendment, which the whole of upon judicial power, operated grant including, of such to controversies between course, States. grant which The two other cases to I have referred are v. Hans U, Louisiana, and S. 1, (1890). Reeves, (1900) Smith In the U. S. 436. the of the first, court was opinion delivered Mr. in. Justice Mr. Justice second, Harlan. by Bradley; by In a shit was in the Louisiana, Hans Circuit brought Court of States the State of the United Louisiana a against citizen by that under the 'claim asserted arose rights under and laws the United Constitution and within the not Eleventh therefore were since Amendment, suits a State a that amendment only prohibited against State or aliens. The another was citizen of argument . were all- Constitution that-as-the guarantees pressed a would- public deprive against abiding, policy United citizen of the Constitution- protection the. was not him within when he States -the by bringing spirit. The court within the the Eleventh Amendment. letter th¿ It broadest possible way. answered contention. held Eleventh that the effect Amendment was to-qualify DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. White, J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., The Chief dissenting. to tbe extent of its the whole prohibitions, grant judicial suit citizen of and, therefore, a State power, although a State to enforce assumed constitutional was rights, the letter of not within amendment, within its no and there was the Federal courts over spirit, In its controversy. summing up general conclusions the court said 21): (p. “ should It is not we enter necessary examina upon tion of the reason the rule which expediency exempts from a court of at the sovereign prosecution justice individuals. This is discussed suit of writers on fully public for us to declare its It is 'existence. law. enough legis of a State lative its represents and department polity will; and is called demands of and highest upon po natural litical law justice hold preserve judgments, in violate the from obligations. Any departure public rule, for reasons most (of cogent, except legislature, never fails the end courts, judge,) incur the and to world, odium bring lasting injury upon But to itself. legislature deprive power judging what the honor the State safetjr even at require,. of a failure to expense temporary discharge public debts, would be attended with evils greater than such failure can cause.” v. Reeves was an action
Smith brought Circuit Court of the United States aby created corporation under an act of the treasurer of the State of Congress, against California, to obtain redress certain taxes. The concerning defendant chal the jurisdiction lenged that in effect ground the ac tion was court, one a State. This that the concluding State of California was the real *41 party interest, was led to consider whether a Federal court was thereby deprived ju risdiction. The contention on the part was plaintiff that aas Federal a corporation invoke, to had in virtue right of the law of its creation, the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, the case was not controlled by prohibitions the Eleventh Amendment suits forbidding a State citizens of by pther States or aliens. court, The Mr. Jus- speaking through Justice, JJ.,
White, J., McKenna, Day, The Chief dissenting. 192 U. S. tice Harlan, again contention, disposed adversely saying ): (p. 446 “ If the’Constitution be so it would follow that interpreted a breated sue State in a any Congress may Cir- corporation by cuit Court States United cause of action, its if in nature, whatever the value the matter is suf- dispute We ficient to cannot give jurisdiction. approve interpre- , tation.” After to the views Madison referring expressed by' Hamilton, which were Marshall, commented upon Hans v. the court Louisiana, quoted approvingly following passage from the Hans Louisiana: opinion “ It us that these views of seeins those great advocates Constitution were most defenders sensible and just; case as to that apply then they equally present is under discussion. The letter it now, as was appealed a suit an then, individual ground sustaining brought . The State reason it is as this case against a strong in that. It as it was strain the attempt Constitution law a construction never and the or dreamed of. imagined we when the Eleventh that, Can suppose Amendment was was understood to be left for citizens of a adopted, open their own State sue the Federal courts, whilst the citizens of other idea of or of States, suits States, foreign ? that repelled Suppose when indignantly Congress, pro had Amendment, the Eleventh- to it a appended posing proviso contained should therein State from prevent nothing own citizens .cases under sued the Con arising being laws of the United can we stitution or imagine The would been States? adopted by have supposition almost an that it its face.” absurdity would-is concluded as .follows (p. 449): opinion intended to never have been" excludefrom “It Federal could or suits Constitution law.s of arising-under judicial .power States when a State in- brought.against private .United and at the saíne time extend state dividuals corporations, to suits of character Federal cor- like power brought its consent.” State without porations against *42 DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. J., JJ., McKenna, Day, Justice, White, dissenting. The Chief to I Here am unable perceive any ground taking again in the made in hand out of cases re- case just rulings of the Eleventh Amendment as letter was viewed. just citizen to suit of a State a State to by inapplicable and to a suit a Federal his constitutional by enforce rights corpo- court of its the Federal virtue creation, ration, suing over controversies between power grant judicial But of the Eleventh Amendment was States. the prohibition to because that amendment was construed as held apply, again claims individuals' enforcement of by private prohibiting of the United States, the judicial through power against States reference to the character of the whom the without person was asserted. In other the decision was that the claim words,, be of the Eleventh was to determined, Amendment operation the formal on the but record, not by party complainant character and nature the claim or which was essential right This how can the decision, asserted. being consistently be held to have effect of South Dakota power give claim as tc which the Eleventh Amendment to a character of of the United States not extend. declares judicial power shall of what Will not I have stated, accuracy just applied case, this demonstrated putting question in Hans v. Louisiana and reiterated put approvingly it the answer which the court Reeves, Smith giving in those the form course, cases, changing, gave ques- here. tion meet case now For this I purpose, repeat in brackets the however, mode placing, question, changed necessitated difference character expression when Suppose parties complainant. Congress, pro- Am? had ndment, the Eleventh to it a posing appended proviso therein contained should a State from nothing prevent ” ¿te sued claims due to its own citizens or being [upon priv aliens or citizens of other if claims were only sold df after the debtor State had refused disposed long otherwise thus them, so as to secure their pay judicial enforcement] “ can we that the Eleventh Amendment would have imagine been ? The the States that it would adopted by supposition is almost on its face.” absurdity
vol. oxen—22
n The Chief
White, J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., dissenting. 192 U. S. Nor do I think the decisions of this previous court, which are relied that the State of upon-as South Dakota establishing *43 maintain this suit, have Of may it course, tendency. is not me .denied that a as to by boundaries between dispute two States' is as a judicially cognizable between controversy and that such States, also be the case where one State .asserts another, that property rights against provided always the assertion of the does not violate particular the- right of the Eleventh Amendment. in prohibitions So, also, my United States v. North U. opinion, Carolina, S. and United v. S. Texas, States U. instead of sustaining view that the cause of action here asserted can be de treated, of Eleventh as a spite Amendment, contro provisions between establish the States, In versy United contrary. States v. North the United Carolina, States sued the State of North Carolina the interest on certain bonds. No concerning North Carolina to the of objection by jurisdiction taken since court, assented to a voluntarily judicial of the issue determination involved. There was, and could have no been, therefore, of so far as the question jurisdiction, of State North Carolina was concerned. The only question have arisen which could was whether a suit jurisdiction by States a State was within United the constitutional against the court in its in grant judicial power. Although opinion v. did United States North Carolina not refer to the subject assumed that must be was- considered. jurisdiction, This is shown a remark United States v. by North concerning in made the court the course of Carolina, in opinion to the effect: Texas, United States following “ true that no was made as It is question jurisdiction ivas therefore of this said in court, nothing opinion did But it attention of the subject. escape would not have been and the rendered court, judgment except that this court has of a theory original jurisdiction upon the. the United States the State.” against suit so far therefore, Those two.cases, concerned, jurisdiction that the grant determined concern- simply judicial power between whilst not States, controversies embrac- letter, ing DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. Justice, J., McKenna, Day, JJ., White, dissenting. The Chief 192 U. the United States a suit against ing brought did of a suit of that char give jurisdiction spirit .purpose then, of these was but to cause a rulings, The effect acter. a State States to be within the the United suit between States. In other words, controversies meaning as to grant ascertaining import judicial power controversies force States, between gave spirit the Constitution order to include a suit purpose within the of con United States category This was troversies between States. simply applying same rule of construction the grant judicial power which had been including United purpose Hans v. in Smith Louisiana, Reeves, previously applied and in all cases the other to which I have in order to ex referred, clude over would controversies, entertain have been a Eleventh spirit purpose violation *44 When Amendment. United States North Carolina and United States it to me considered, v. Texas are seems clear that the now the decision made not is destructive of only inherent the Eleventh States as rights protected by but also of the United Amendment, strips government of its States as a it under the to rights belonging sovereign Constitution. under to As the decisions referred a suit be tween the United States and within the a State is grant over controversies between must judicial power follow that a suit a States is the United also against of that character. a contro Now, as the is that such ruling include the if versy individual, claim a may of private only such claim be transferred to suit a a follows that a State the United against States on a claim that character is within the Thus it grant judicial power. claim, come to has that pass any every against United States, whatever be its enforceable character, is against the United States if a to only State chooses acquire prosecute enforcement. It is no to answer suggest such claims of individuals are private not unless the justiciable law of the United States has if so, caused them to be for constitutional of judicial embraces such contro grant power TERM, 1903. J., McKenna, White, Justice, Day, JJ., dissenting. The Chief
versies as restriction is now held, necessarily by Congress would be Constitution. repugnant have does not how the which reason
My principles perceive them are been and the of this court stated rulings enforcing as court rendered that, inapplicable suggestion transfer of into the motives particular inquire actuating in be it is without to refuse enforce right,’therefore power half of This South Dakota the alleged gift. upon proceeds the want to enforce a of jurisdiction private assumption motive. But the absence claim a State against depends upon rests the constitutional of such jurisdiction prohibition action itself to nature of cause of addresses very into it: the duty inquire imposes upon when such the even a case case, the court is brought power of the Union in this court one of the States to enforce illustrated by Wisconsin alleged pecuniary right, aptly 265. There S. the State of Co., Pelican Insurance 127 U. obtained the defendant Wisconsin, having judgment a. availed Wisconsin, in the courts of corporation original defendant court to sue the corporation held as the was that, enforce the It was judgment judgment. laws of Wisconsin, penalty imposed by penal had the court would look at ties no extraterritorial operation, based, which the judgment origin rights upon thé also declined enforce See and, so, judgment. doing Andrews 188 U. 14. result of Andrews, If, merely of law the extraterritorial rule general operation this court looked beyond statutory judgment penalties, of action sued on a State to the cause merged judg *45 the now must have the relief, and refused court ment, power of action and the of the cause look into origin to present To do Dakota. other the State South asserted lights to that a but me is general principle to declare wise seems enforcement penal the extraterritorial law restricting declared than the to -havemore sanctity held statutes must be Elev of the United States expressed ofwill the people ’ in this Indeed, power enth Amendment. existence one in suits motive brought by to inquire purpose into r. DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. J., JJ., dissenting. 192 TT. The Chief White, Justice, McKenna, Day, another State New was directly upheld Hamp shire and New York v. It Louisiana, v. Louisiana supra. was not denied those cases that the bonds sued were upon and that if rules of law contro negotiable, controlling versies between individuals were to be the title private applied, e each State to th bonds sought plaintiff recovery upon could not be but should be regarded absolute. gainsaid, to enforce the however, Eleventh Coining, provisions the court held that it its to Amendment, duty depart from the and to rule examine into the nature ordinarily applied of the asserted and if to effect would be give thereto rights, to inconsistent with constitutional refuse to-lend provisions, aid to the enforcement of the claims.- Second. But out of view what seem to be the con putting stated, let ine now look at the trolling principles previously from a narrower view and consider controversy point those- considerations which would rights parties enforcement of It is apply private rights. unquestioned on the record that State of South Dak given the.bonds ota and which its action is based were at the due past time of the and that for more than gift, years twenty prior the State of North gift Carolina her had, by legislation, held herself not bound to the same. That facts these pay were known State of South Dakota when it accepted shown. makers could not transfer gift gift to the State of South Dakota which had not. In rights they other if when the was made that words, gift was parted with was not and had never been susceptible susceptible enforcement because not legal embodying justiciable obliga tion the State of North Carolina, State of South Dakota could not, acceptance gift, acquire greater were rights possessed transferrer. I take it to ..than be the rule of law that, whilst con elementary public tracts of- a natural moral sovereign may obliga engender are one sense are property, they yet obligations tions,, on the of' the no resting promise sovereign possessing other sanction than the honor of good the sover faith itself. These principles, eign applied States of *46 Day, dissenting.
White, J., Justice, McKenna, JJ., The Chief tbis áre of the of the Union, the adoption resultant necessary It to refer to Eleventh Amendment. is not necessary opinions since the this court—as to general subject, publicists doctrine declared the so States the Union—has fully forum. it no an leave open question longer from the The already quoted passages opinion concluding referred to in Hans v. Louisiana, supra, approvingly clearest Smith state Reeves, possible way. subject this court to the mentioned, however, Prior cases just doctrine. had announced same A few numerous decisions be will now no of the more of those cases important briefly re 123 U. court, ticed. In In Ayers, speak (1887) said Matthews, Mr. Justice (p. 504): ing, through “ 11th doubted that Amendment to the It cannot be distinction be create important Constitution operates a State with individuals contracts contracts- of tween In the case of contracts individual between between parties. their enforcement breach, remedies individuals, are a were entered into, at the time they existence part and constitute a substantial of its part itself, agreement 203. That New U. S. Orleans, Louisiana v. obligation. article of the I, virtue of provision obligation, § cannot the United impaired, any Constitution tha Thus, covenants only state legislation. subsequent are but of the contract also and- conditions preserved, for its remedies enforcement. It substance original individuals and In between State. with contracts different virtue these, 11th Amendment respect a suit there no Constitution, remedy by being without sanction, contract is substantially except honor and out faith of which arises good are not coercion. and these itself, subject Although con contract, at have inception the State may, itself to suit, of its conditions as one subject sented that consent and resume its withdraw original subsequently its con without violation obligation immunity, Arkansas, sense. Beers v. How. the constitutional tract 101 U. S. 337. The Tennessee, Co. Railroad 527; very DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. White, J., 192 JJ., Justice, McKenna, Day, Chief disáentih^. 11th Amendment were to object prevent purpose *47 to, the the coercive of of indignity subjecting, process, at the instance of It judicial tribunals parties. private to be neither nor convenient that the .sev thought becoming eral States of invested with that the.Union, residuum large of which had not been to the United sovereignty delegated should States, be summoned as defendants to the answer s of whether citizens of complaints other private persons, State the course aliens, or of their and the public policy administration of their affairs should be to and public subject controlled mandates tribunals without their by judicial consent, and in favor of individual To secure the interests. manifest of the constitutional purposes exemption guaranteed 11th Amendment that it should by requires interpreted, not and too but literally and with narrowdy,, such fairly, sub-, breadth and largeness effectually accomplish stance of its purpose.”
There is another and allied reason which seems to me decisive this claim. As will be observed equally from from the already this court in quoted opinion passage In re it was there Ayers supra, declared that affirmatively as the a State rested but on its obligation conceptions moral the State itself, under the duty, great responsibilities attach to it as which was the ultimate tribunal sovereign, creditor whom the at the agreed very inception contract to submit his And that where a rights. sovereign thus duty de discharge public it, resting upon clared payment conclusion obligation, was a determination by the tribunal sovereign by had been on and was impliedly agreed binding upon creditor, a result of and, as the Eleventh Amendment, of review or susceptible courts of change the United States. doctrine to this Applying case is apparent the transfer of before .that bonds years to the State of the State of Dakota, South North had, Carolina through constituted authorities, determined that the duly holder the bonds in had not the now question asserted right of. the State of South Dakota under the transfer from such
?>i& Whit®; J., Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., dissenting. The'Chief creditor. This after all to demon serves only additionally strate the that the fallacy underlying assumption South Dakota, because is a State and avail grant between ovér controversies judicial-power can so of the Eleventh Amendment,. ing escape prohibition created for the the States and very pre purpose protecting their control their own It over affairs. serving independent seems to me the which must arise from disre gross inequality of the tribunal selected the creditor garding judgment illustrated this case. When the facts which I have well be observed that there at outset stated are it will recalled, of dollars of Avereabout tAvoand a half millions outstanding the State of as those noAVowned bonds of the same series Avasreduced to that amount about South Dakota, and *48 dollars of as a con two hundred thousand fifty principal, of the State North Carolina of the conclusion sequence It is also of its financial situation. concerning exigencies in the the facts stated certain, Avhen petition presented of the State of of North Carolina by assignor legislature that but fon this vast reduction of recalled, Dakota are South of the State of North the determination the debt by produced to be realized now Carolina, sought security alléged (cid:127) be of no value. The Dakota would the State of South by the,State then is that this, the record attitude moral shown-by mere bounty as the beneficiary Dakota,- of South from benefit to derive all individual, resulting seeks as to its debt of North Carolina public of the State judgment same, judgment, time desires repudiate at within been its reach have never would Avhich to obtain rights had not Carolina been of North of the State if the judgment even, seems, it to me if these circumstances Under exercised. the final- vested Avith was disregard power equity time the bonds were at selected the tribunal the. judgment in favor not exercise power court should issued, which the State position record standing one here occupies. Dakota (cid:127)South of view, narrower point from a yet
Looking.at question In United to me to impelled. seems conclusion the same r. CAROLINA. NORTH DAKOTA Day, JJ., dissenting. McKenna, J., Justice, The Chief White, considered was 3 Pet. question (1830) States Buford, of the United claim by government whether acquired limitation which barred was individual, .an from States was States, the United yet time of its at the acquisition court de- The in the hands government. enforceable circum- the United under such that, cided from government exemption stances, despite general the bar of the statute was statute, opera- of such operation The court said tive. (p. 30): “ transfer of that the show, no It argument can-require cannot to it States any greater claim to the United give in the hands of the than it assignor.” validity possessed the Court Exchequer And this applied principle cited United v. Morrall, Price, approvingly King facts of R. 118 U. 120. The Co., Nashville &c. States v. as follows: On a seire it was brief, case were, facias from a creditor of a debtor the crown to recover sought by On amount of a certain bill to the crown exchange. the. it was con the statute of limitations to a demurrer plea the stat of the crown was not barred tended right that^ of fact admitted the debt. point by plea ute— Lord Baron Richards observed Chief court held otherwise. (p. 28): “ and cannot The crown is entitled to debtor’s only right, if none of its debtor, or revive create any right person .In this case, it has become extinct. éxisted, or ever nothing the debtor of the crown recovered have been could I if the had been therefore defendant statute pleaded; *49 a bar to the suit of the that is also crown,' consider good in stands the same situation as its debtor, who precisely an this is honest which therefore the law that allows. plea could thus its debtor in a If the crown better situation put such a before, this, than he Avas the conse- by proceeding be monstrous before the of the late stat- Avould passing quence' would have incalculable.” and the mischief been ute, said Wood, Baron, (p. 29): a claim
“In the of the croAvn is derivative only this case, stand in the same situation as its and it must, therefore, right, principal.”
3á6 dissenting. McKenna, Day, JJ., White, J., Justice, Chief The Garro remarked w, Baron, (p. 31): “ benefit a to be for the said, fiction, a By process, it is the debt, revive cred- crown, attempted place better than the law is itor a situation This too permits. ” an . . . absurdity; gross that a These authorities' demonstrate claim additionally when the State of which, Dakota, South was acquired by fact of did not the mere such ac sanction, without legal It become a enforceable be justiciable, quisition right. there was no of said that statute limitations State of North Carolina the claim. But this whole barring begs It that the State of North Carolina assumes should question. of the idle a have statute ceremony special indulged passing after the a of limitations of certain time, extinguishing, lapse which had never a cause of action existed. The is proposition but a further illustration of wrhichresults misconception the claim individual from holding be not enforceable can made such which is voluntary act transferring. very-"attribute renders sovereignty for its it. own behalf sovereign unnecessary legislate of statutes of insolvent and limitations, other passage like controlled alone will, laws, -by sense duty which must be to en responsibility sovereignty presumed determines question liability. gender, let me But order to see analyze proposition what it What is a-statute leads to. limitations ? It is but the ac- State in tion of the after the determining that, lapse spec- claim shall not be ified time,-a enforceable. In this legally from case, very inception alleged obligation - the transfer South time of there Dakota, pause for the of action no enforcement of the claim un- legal of North Carolina, laws der the obligation Amendment no cause action could Eleventh. subject to exist in court of be asserted To the United States. there to recover in hold that is would right case not exist if there had been a statute ofdimitations barring cause of none had action, ever although arisen, but to say tois right determined words parties hav- *50 DAKOTA v. NORTH CAROLINA, 347 .White, J., Day, JJ., dissenting. McKenna; The Chief Justice, S.U. The fact the state whatever.. that no of. significance ing was not to be co- her own' courts, North Carolina, subject in. in in the claim was effect a statute as to state erced question, the the State in the since act of limitations, forbidding arising of an action is reason a cause certainly equivalent of action where one a cause a case act of that barring It is non-existence of the cause of action at could exist. of the which the rule transfer, the time upon rests preventing barred, from on a claim which was at recovering sovereign it. true also the Eleventh it This is the time acquired that amendment from date Amendment. As. incep- the assertion of tion contract prohibited alleged the same the courts the United cause of action concerning the amendment was national statute substantially it limitations. Thus furnishes an effectual barrier, operating, Dakota from in the South asserting preventing the. States that had from courts of United its trans- acquired of action which Constitution of the ferrer a cause United far as from ever so States existing judicial power prevented was concerned. States United fact that State of Nor South Dakota does alleges of certain there was a stock North mortgage pledge take the at all to case Carolina Railroad serve out of control of the Eleventh It is-not' the provisions Amendment.. of stock to have been any delivery alleged pretended made to the on the bondholders; ever contrary, pledged stock has been is conceded question always the State of North The Carolina. possession right of. must therefore enforce the rest alleged pledge power to enforce a claim the State of North Carolina private and to take from its 'it has ever possession property had the absolute dominion and control. And view is to mind concluded of this one my .court, rulings previous of which I shall now notice. particularly |
Christian Railroad, v. Atlantic & North Carolina (1890) bill in to reach dividends on 233, was equity railroad, stock dividends to company, apply of bonds the State of North Carolina, issued by payment TERM, 1903. Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., dissenting. U. J.,
White, Chief *51 owned and held the a of stock State. It and for sale was by the the defendants that inwas sub contended by proceeding and the therefore within the State, stance against' prohibitions Eleventh Amendment. the The correctness this co was on the that there denied, ntention was a valid ground contract in favor that contract there was complainant; by iii its and that the a the suit favor; was not object pledge hold the State of North Carolina or to but to sue to it, proceed the stock to enforce in rem the in and to it re against right contract. The from the court—not at all sulting disputing correct the that if the conclusionbased on it premise legal to test the was well the proceeded accuracy prem founded— in stock It found that the had 'ise. never been question to delivered but had alleged re- actually pledgee, always (cid:127) mained of the State. possession agents Reaching it held that this 'was there was no conclusion, unless pledge from such contract resulted the declaration of State that' the. the stock held it was to consider that by .pledged. Coming Mr. court, Justice question; speaking through Bradley, said 242): (p. “ It. was no a more of than is made a pledge farmer when by his or he his stock of cattle crop for the pledges growing pay ment of a without debt, thereof. He any delivery does not in its in His use the word but technical, sense. popular amount to a if such a may language parol mortgage, mortgage created; be but that is all can So this case, the pledge a have to statute may a by mort given amounted but it could to more amount and if a ; nothing gage, mortgage, did not but place mortgagee him possession, gave a naked to have the right merely property appropriated to of his debt. But is that how payment applied right ? If the be asserted be a mortgagor private person, mort decree, him into court cite and have a for the fore gagee and sale closure The or property.- his mortgagor, would be a such necessary assignee, party proceeding. the reach absent, Even when he beyond must still process, be at made least cited party constructively by publication This is otherwise. established authorities before. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
SOUTH DAKOTA Justice, McKenna, Day, JJ., White, dissenting. J., 192 U. The Chief S- be cited more same effect. referred to, might many decree obtain, The is a suit party proceeding But where the benefit of court, mortgage right. no such State, is a pro possession sovereign mortgagor maintained; be can mortgagee’s right against ceeding in a valid, the State bemay just good point moral But if it were State cannot view, individual. into be court or sued without its private brought a_ party It under consent. was at first heid that, á be sued in it Constitution might United another, or of a but was citizen of State; foreign the 11th Amendment. thát the judicial declared-by power extend United Stales shall-not construed *52 108 U. Loui ; suits. New S. 76 Louisiana, Hampshire S. Jumel, ; siana v. U. Parsons 107 711 Marye, U. S. In re 52; Ayers, ; Southern, Hagood 443.” cited to the case made case ruling just Applying it to that in me results hand, clearly alleged possession , was with stock never mortgaged parted pledged State of Carolina, of North asserted State right by’the to enforce the comes South Dakota alleged pledge directly of the in within the Eleventh since Amendment, prohibition it the existence in this of the its essence depends the State of in to enforce North Carolina favor power against a mere North South made Dakota, the State promise to which the of South to State individual, Carolina private was no than Dakota possessed by acquired greater right to it of the individual who made transfer bonds ques- tion. out view the considera-
Third. various Finally, putting stated, I which have this record tions my opinion previously a condition of which a court discloses things ought prevent from to enforce for the benefit exerting powers equity it of South Dakota the claim which asserts the State facts which I of North From the have at State Carolina. it is undeniable that at the time the outset recited gift the bonds in to the State of South Dakota of made question dissenting. McKenna, JJ., J., The Chief Justice, Day., White, 192 U. had due and thereof been were more they payment past to the refused than State of years gift twenty prior letter North Carolina. demonstrates evidencing gift to the that of the South Dakota, purpose gift to assert cause of action was to enable that State did North which not exist the State of Carolina in favor of act It also transferrer. appears by .the legislature which this of South under suit was that Dakota, brought, deemed Dakota that it South might acquire the act mere since itself advance litigate, provided right State should ac the attorney general prosecute tions in name of the State recover bonds or ckoses .the in action which be transferred to the might without cost to since the act itself, contemplated litigation counsel"to employ attorney general prosecute empowered to be out which suits, proceeds paid might compensation This condition of my herealized. things, opinion, although in the strict sense of that word not be may champertous to a in its nature is equivalent engagement, champertous one whose which enforcement contrary public policy, aid .to not to lend its into effect. a court therefore carry ought doctrine of It said "that the maintenance has been sometimes no But this has application sovereign. champerty into view the attributes can alone be high taking justified Now if the State of South to sovereignty. pertain over Dakota avail delegation judicial power conferred view of States—a controversies between power *53 the the all States—for of de of purpose the dignity sovereign of another State such by the subjecting sovereignty stroying a claim of indi coercion to concerning private State judicial the to me State of South it seems should then vidual, Dakota to individual enforce a other be treated any private seeking a court have of by and should claim, applied private and which control morality the justice principles equity aid to who courts in persons acquire merely such refusing claims. As the court, said by speculative litigious Co., vs. Quidnick its Randolph (1890) course of opinion true its case-where ideas of “If is a sub- S. 457: equity, U. DAKOTA v. NORTH CAROLINA. Day, JJ., White, J., Justice, McKenna, dissenting. The Chief the letter of refuses to be bound legal pro justice, stantial aid to a mere- or to lend its purchase cedure', speculative ruin to of 'honest threatens body large injury for the of their debts who have trusted creditors, payment theretofore taken.” How to the legal validity proceedings to the case hand is these observations shown apply aptly that the holders of more than mil it is considered two Avhen class as that of bonds same held the lion dollars Dakota, more than before the State of twenty years South faith of on the transfer to that accepted, opera Amendment, and the circumstances of the Eleventh tion at the of North Carolina time,-the surrounding and therefore that act of 1879; adjustment proposed as I have effect, the claim South Dakota now urged, stated, seeks to avail of the result about brought previously at Amendment, the Eleventh yet operation which it time rights same deny efficacy regards the inference claims. It shown by additionally arising fiscal from record the ivhole system in existence has North Carolina since adjustment the action taken the creditors the State con rested upon their reliance State of possessionby upon upon sequent it was the Avhich the attributes of purpose sovereignty Eleventh Amendment to consecrate.
But all the reasoning considering previous eliminating is one be the case controrersy hypothesis that the court is am of tween nevertheless I opinion of the reasons which And the statement without jurisdiction. an examination of the involves sec me to this conclusion impel stated, ond me at outset Avh'ich was by proposition that is—
(B) vjo/nt which is of entered, the decree now directed to render power ábéence essential because whose parties and the oust presence impotency would grant whatever absence pa/rties. relief conclusions of the view that Even under general *54 1903. JJ., dissenting. Day, McKenna, IT. S. Justice, J., The Chief White, ot-er as one the controversy as to its between authority the I that cannot holders of founded, well the agree States is the North Carolina in aid of Railroad issued are not bonds since the to .this nature of the controversy, essential parties necessitates their and since, relief prayed presence, specifically no decree sub- my without presence, opinion, giving the or relief to the stantial complainant doing justice prin- be If defendant, can rendered. are such essential they cipal that the court is without it ismot parties, questioned, jurisdic- v. Southern tion. Company, Pacific California Under, irp. valid the that there was a assumption mortgage and other holders of favor of the the same class complainant the bill that it bonds, is essential upon theory proceeds that it be claim or determined'what holders of right Carolina bonds issued aid of the North Railroad have upon in the stock in To that end the bill question. challenged of such in favor existence of any pledge bondholders, right holders of bonds theory that, issued in upon aid of the Western North Carolina Railroad, had lost they their of 1879. It how- by accepting is, right compromise further in the bill that even if asserted ever, holders of issued in aid of the North bonds Carolina Railroad had lost their not, by accepting compromise rights and those situated, as the complainant similarly yet due when the of 1879 was adjustment entéred pledge past it was afford the into, essential, relief as a complainant stock, creditor on the secured the entire stock be junior free from all And sold encumbrances. this was also the posi- filed tion taken the answer on behalf of the representative bonds issued in aid North outstanding Western ' Railroad. The been bill, then, Carolina framed having relief referred theory necessity to, specific without which could be afforded presence to me, seems not now to lienholders, cause, other ought different in- relief, be decided upon- wholly theory, , that' consistent with prayed for, awarded specifically basis. complainant upon changed DAKOTA NORTH CAROLINA. Day, Justice, *55 White, J., JJ., McKenna, dissenting. The Chief out But, of-view stated, considerations leaving just ,to me the which it seems decree is to enter proposed afford relief to the without cannot any specific complainant, of the materially destroying impairing rights prior are now held not to be essen- lienholders, although they to the The in favor of tial controversy. parties pledge of the in aid of the North holders bonds issued Carolina Bail- of all and for the benefit road was the stock of all the bonds. It It cannot be therefore indivisible. divided without impair- the contract favor of those cred- ing obligations whilst each -of the ten which it is in Now, itors. mortgages held the be ten effect purported complainant possesses no stock each ten shares bond, shares of particular securing or identified. As a result no divi- were delivered, segregated the State had in been of the stock held fact ever made, sion each one of the ten shares assumed therefore, and, every to secure each of the bonds were to be mortgaged subject on all the stock in favor of all the holders of lien prior in aid of the When bonds issued North Carolina Bailroad. is made to enforce what the decree this case the attempt ? If be sold unless shares, then, shares will any particular, lienholders are to be rendered divisible, prior rights are the shares sold must continue to indivisible, they although favor of all the bonds issued entire pledge subject North Bailroad. To in aid of the Carolina state situation, will afford is to demonstrate that the decree it seems to me, relief The that can be said, no whatever. best substantial that the effect of a sale so made circumstances, under such is n to foment a law suit. A court of will be merely equity, its aid is invoked to if it finds relief, when give particular it is unable to do it, whilst not, ought denying to enter a which no relief,* decree confers substantial relief, on the can serve as a fruitful source but, only contrary, or class future tfye litigation, injurious rights very party But this favor the decree is rendered. whose is persons decree will, substance, for whilst the deprive all, benefit assumed real from his security, complainant to the State decree must sale under the also result injuriously vol. oxen—23 J.,
White, Justice, McEenna, Day, JJ., The Chief dissenting. 192 U. S of North Carolina. Its as well as those of the com- rights, are entitled to consideration. plainant, of possibility decree is now taken into account in deficiency opinion on that are reserved. But if sale rights which is subject to be ordered lead is one must to a prejudicial result, then the effect decree to order á sale which simply can at best no more than a nominal sum, will produce lay a foundation for a decree for an amount deficiency wholly out of actual value of the proportion mortgaged prop- It is to mind no answer to out that erty. whilst my point there was no of the ten shares of delivery segregation stock secure each as such division was bond, mortgaged *56 will a court of treat that as done which for, provided equity being should have been done. The this lies fallacy failing consider the lienholders and rights prior overlooking the fact that their lien was indivisible, that the segrega- tion for in act of 1866 could not be made provided without to' the entire subordinate sum of the being prior indivisible When this is borne in mind it right pledge. that the of those lienholders are neces- rights prior results clouded or that a court of sarily impaired by decreeing equity wjll beqn treat that as done which to have having ought been done; when the could it is, have been very question done with the efficaciously, rights consistently prior lienholders ? I therefore, essential They are, submit, parties, if it is real relief the decree of sale proposed give any which is ordered. If it not that char- proposed give acter a decree relief, then such to be entered, ought when it and in does not accord with is in- especially reality consistent with the relief asked for. specific I am authorized the Chief Mr. Justice, Jus- to-say Day TipE McKenna Mr. concur this dissent. Justice