COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
v.
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

U.S. | 1916-06-12
No. 2
241 U.S. 531 Supreme Court of the United States (1916) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 60 L. Ed. 1147 · 36 S. Ct. 719 · SCDB 1915-147 · 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1674
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Virginia obtained a monetary judgment of $12,393,929.50 against West Virginia in an original jurisdiction dispute, and Virginia subsequently sought a writ of execution to compel payment. The Supreme Court denied the execution petition without prejudice, holding that a state must be given a reasonable opportunity through its legislative process to satisfy a judgment before compulsory enforcement measures may be imposed.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.

In the original cause of Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, on June 14, 1915, a decree was rendered in favor of Virginia and against West Virginia for the sum of $12,393,929.50 with interest thereon at the rate of five pereentum from July 1st, 1915, until paid. 238 U. S. 202. Virginia now petitions for a writ of execution against West Virginia on the ground that such relief is necessary as the latter has taken no steps whatever to provide for the payment of the decree. West Virginia resists the granting of the execution on three grounds: (1) “Because the State of'West Virginia, within herself, has no power to pay the judgment in question, except through the legislative department of her government, and she should be given an opportunity to accept and abide by the decision of this court, and, in the due and ordinary course, to make provision, for its satisfaction, before any steps looking to her compulsion be taken; and to issue an execution at this time would deprive her of such opportunity, because her Legislature has not met since the rendition of said judgment, and will not again meet in regular session until the second Wednesday in January, 1917, and the members of that body have not yet .been chosen;” (2) because presumptively the State of West Virginia has no. property subject to execution; and (3) because although the Constitution imposes upon this court the duty, and grants it full power, to consider controversies between States and therefore authority to render the decree in question, yet with the grant of jurisdiction there was conferred no authority whatever to enforce a money judgment against a State if in the exercise of jurisdiction such a judgment was entered.

Without going further, we are of the opinion that the first ground furnishes adequate reason for hot granting the motion at this time.

The prayer for the issue of a writ of execution is therefore denied, without prejudice to the renewal of the same after the next session of the legislature of the State of West Virginia has met and had a reasonable opportunity to provide for the payment of the judgment.

And it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (U.S. 1962)
    …“No Money shall be drawn from'the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . See also the intervening opinions and dispositions: 209 U. S. 514; 220 U. S. 1, 36; 222 U. S. 17, 19-20; 231 U. S. 89; 234 U. S. 117; 238 U. S. 202; 241 U. S. 531. The provision in 28 U. S. C. § 2503 for Commissioners to take evidence and make preliminary rulings is conformable in all respects with the practice of masters in chancery. For the judicial quality of the proceedings, see the Revised Rules of the…
  • Commonwealth of Va. v. State of W. Va., 246 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1918)
    …y the exercise of the equitable powers in the discharge of the duty to-Enforce , payment, may be available for that purpose. And it is so ordered. 206 U. S. 290; 209 U. S. 514; 220 U. S. 1; 222 U. S. 17; 231 U. S. 89; 234 U. S. 117; 238 U. S. 202; 241 U. S. 531. Gannett, Boundaries of the United States, pp. 24r-29. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1, 3, 6; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; 5 Pet. 284; 6 Pet. 323; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 7 Pet. 651; 11 Pet. 226; 12 Pet. 657; 13 Pet. 23; 14 Pet. 2…
  • Johnston v. Brown, 6 F.2d 372 (2d Cir. 1925)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw