THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
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.
New Jersey sued New York in the Supreme Court, and New York's attorney general filed a demurrer in response. Chief Justice Marshall held that the demurrer constituted a valid appearance by the state and satisfied the Court's previous order requiring New York to answer the bill, since a demurrer in law qualifies as an answer even though it is not a technical answer under oath. The Court directed the demurrer to be set for argument on the first Monday of March.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. The court have had the return made in this case under consideration. It considers the demurrer filed in this case by the attorney-general of New York, as being an appearance for the state, he being a practitioner in this court; and therefore, that the demurrer is regularly filed. If the attorney general did not so mean it, it is not a paper which can be considered as in the cause, or be placed on the files of the court. We say this now, that the attorney-general may have due notice, if he did not intend to enter any appearance for the slate; it being otherwise a paper hot to be received.
The demurrer, then, being admitted as containing an appearance by the state, the court is of opinion, that it amounts to - a compliance with the order at the last term. In that order, the word •“ answer,” is not used in a technical sense, as an answer to the charges in the bill under oath; but an answer, in a more general sense, to the bill. A demurrer is an answer in law to the bill, though not in a technical sense an answer according to the common language of practice.
The court, therefore, direct the demurrer to be set down for argument, on the first Monday of March of this term, according to the motion of the plaintiffs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Wis. v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1888)…volution by the King in Council, and under the Articles of Confederation (while there was no national judiciary) by committees or commissioners appointed by Congress. Story on the Constitution, § 1681; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; 5 Pet. 284; 6 Pet. 323; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 724, 736, 759; 13 Pet. 23 ; 14 Pet. 210; 15 Pet. 233; 4 How. 591, 628; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, and 10 How. 1; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Virginia v. West Virgi…
-
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1938)…91; (June 1936) 9 State Government 118; Dodd, Interstate Compacts. (1936) 70 U. S. L. Rev. 557, 574. The agreement between New Jersey and New York in 1833 put an end to the boundary suit begun in 1829, New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461, 5 Pet. 284, 6 Pet. 323. See also Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 283 U. S. 789 (Connecticut River); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 805 (Delaware River); Wyoming v. Colorado, 286 U. S. 494, 298 U. S. 573 (Laramie River); Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S…
-
New Hampshire v. Louisiana and Others, 108 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1883)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence