STATE OF GEORGIA
v.
GRANT
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 procedural rules for suits within its original equity jurisdiction, holding that motions for leave to file bills would be heard ex parte on regular motion days unless extraordinary circumstances warranted hearing arguments from both sides, and requiring complainants to file ten printed copies of their bills with the clerk before the hearing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The court has adopted no rules governing suits in cases of original jurisdiction. In cases of equity, however, it has been the usual practice to hear a motion in behalf of the complainant for leave to file the bill, and, leave having been given, subsequent proceedings have been regulated by orders made from time to time as occasion required. The motion for leave has been usually beard ex parte; except at the last term, when leave was asked in behalf of the State of Mississippi to file a bill against the President of the United States.* Under the peculiar circumstances of that case it was thought proper that argument should be heard against the motion for leave. We perceive no reason for making such an exception in the case of the present motion. It will be heard, therefore, on the regular motion day, and only on the part of the complainant; and the court will require that ten printed copies of the bill be filed with' the clerk before the hearing.
The practice now observed maybe regarded as that which will hereafter be adopted in all cases of original equity jurisdiction.
*
4 Wallace, 475.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
California v. S. Pac. Co., 157 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1895)…been adopted in the English courts in analogous cases, and that the rules of court in chancery should govern in conducting the case to a final issue, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; 13 Pet. 23; 14 Pet. 210; 15 Pet. 233; Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241; although the court is not bound to follow this practice when it would embarrass the case -by unnecessary technicalities or defeat' the purposes of justice. Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478. It was held in Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, 198, that w…
-
Mississippi v. Stanton and Grant, 154 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1867)
-
Wash. State v. N. Sec. Co., 185 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1902)…acific Railway Company, a corporation of Wisconsin. Notice was given to the proposed defendants and argument had in support of and against the motion. The usual practice in equity cases has been to hear such applications ex parte, Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241; although under special circumstanées a different course has'been pursued. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475. Ordinarily, as stated by the Chief Justice in the latter case, the motion for leave to file is granted as matter of course. 4 Wall. 478'.…