GRAYSON VERSUS VIRGINIA
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.
The Supreme Court established general procedural rules for its equity and admiralty jurisdiction, adopting practices from similar courts while reserving authority to adapt procedures to circumstances of the United States subject to legislative control. The Court ordered that process against a state must be served on the governor and attorney general, and that subpoenas in equity cases must be served sixty days before the return day, with leave to proceed ex parte if the defendant fails to appear.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
By the Court
:—After a particular examination of the powers veiled in this Court, in caufes of Equity, as well as in caufcs of Admiralty and Maritime jurifdidlion, w>e colled! a general rule for .the .government of-out proceedings; with a diferetionary, authority, however, to deviate from that rule, where its application wou’dbe injurious or iinpradücabio. The general rule preferibes to us an adoption of that practice,.whiqb is founded on the cufíoro and ufage ofCourls of Admiralty arid Equity, conilituted on fimilar principles; but ftill, It is thought, that we are alfa autbórifcd to, make fuch deviations as are ne-ceffar'y to adapt the procefs and rules'of the Court to the pecu- • iiarcircumftances of this country, fubjedl to the interpolation, alteration, and controul, of the Legiilature'*.
W e have* therefore, agreed to malee the following general Orders; and the Cdunfel, in the prefent cafe, will take his meafures accordingly. • . '
I.. Ordered That when procefs at Common Law, dr in Equity, ihall iffue-againft a State, the fame íhall be ferved upon the Governor, or Chief Executive Magiilrate, and the " Attorney-General, of fuch State. 2. Ordered, That procefs of fubpcena iffuing opt of this Court, in any fuit in Equity, fhall be ferved on the Defendant fixty days before the return day of the faid procefs : and, further, that if the Defendant, on fuch fervice of the fubpcena, (ball not appear alt the return day contained therein, the complainant fhall be at liberty to proceed ex parte.
Lewis the.n obferved, that the fubpcena in this caf-, had been iffued on the fame principles j but as the orders could only operate in futuro, he thought it beft to withdraw his ¡notiomfer a difiringas, and to pray that an alias fubpcena might be awarded ; which was, accordingly, done.
*
Seethe Judicial Act, f. 14. The Act to regulate Procc.%s.ih the Í'ediíra'Courts, iV ». '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1887)
-
Ex Parte. In the Matter of the Commonwealth of Ky. v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 (U.S. 1860)
-
Petterson Lighterage & Towing Corp. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co., 126 F.2d 992 (2d Cir. 1942)…udiciary Act, 1 St.L. 83, gave the right of appeal to the circuit court from decrees in admiralty of the district court where the amount was over $300; between $50 and $300 a writ of error alone was available (§ 22). Wiscart v. D’Auchy, 3 Dall. 321, 1 L.Ed. 619. But the Act of 1803, 2 St.L. at L. 244, changed this so that until 1875 all decrees were reexaminable on the facts in the circuit court and indeed new evidence could be admitted. By § 1 of the Act of 1875, 18 St.L. 315, the circuit court was requir…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence