Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
A report, of the whole trial of Gen. Michael Bright, and others: before Washington & Peters, in the Circuit Court, of the United States, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, in the third circuit, on an indictment for obstructing, resisting, and opposing the execution, of the writ of arrest, issued out of the District Court of Pennsylvania; in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others, against the surviving executrices of David Rittenhouse, deceased.
Author
Lloyd, Thomas; the arguments of counsel and charge of the judge, revised by each respectively.
Contributor
Bright, Michael, Gen. Lloyd, T. fl. 1788-1819 Olmsted, Gideon, 1749-1845 United States. Circuit Court (3rd Circuit)
Date Added
13 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1809
Publisher
Philadelphia: Printed for P. Byrne.
Source
Pennsylvania
Topic
Bright, Michael, Gen. Trials, litigation, etc. Trials (Resisting an officer) Pennsylvania Philadelphia
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
7”(M113-f)- ,3". n
ristlfctiaizf%tlza’UriZ(Z'21tStaies,must,-at oncc,‘be‘ ann'iliilated,‘ ; q
1-3and;;tl1e.si1it di‘smis‘se'd,= by thesmugical allegation.ofytatc z:7i- :
, tc,rcs‘t..';iAg’ain :..T,heV“grants’oft,’a greutvportionlyof theivululablei . H . ,
ii ‘landsof‘Pennsylvania, have been made by“the.rstate,i‘upou the. " i i V
condition Bfiseittlxements and residencegv. 'xvill,'it52,ozvtbe ‘said 7’ V, V
. (gas it has been said,;on another occasion, whvgn"1VIr.VIngefs'o!l”
V and myself united strenuously, aintisttccessflxlly, to refute the; '
V" doctrine")',that,ti'n gun.ejectmentjbrought fern tract of land, ' c
V wbiyfa citizeniofs another, state, against acitizen of, this ’state,. of
the federal jurisdiction,;:ini suits at,la1z), ‘between citizcznzsqfmll A
‘L - ‘idif'eI;e22tjstates,- isidestroyeclsbylthe, allegation of a contingent: . “
; ‘stare i72t8)‘ifSt,‘ in the: peri"ormance"‘ofthe condition ? Theses ' i
’etfet:ts.‘of;tlie construction, givenhtof the amendnient of the
,,iconstitution',iz1re put merely by way of iexvatnple; and not asfs V n V,
, cotnprehending the whole of, the absu’rdity”and'mischiefjto4 c
' wfahieli stlineiconstfuction will, inevitably, lead-:‘for5(let mere-g If ‘
.peat).’w"hen.,the, amendment,‘ in its ipoliciyi, mid in:-its’rerins,,
applies ‘to ‘the single case t)f.t(i,Sl"(lt(! defc-rzdarzt, the cons‘trt1(<':‘-‘ye
tionfcxtends its operation,.to.‘e,veryi possible c‘On't,roversy-,eW
tiwhoever ‘may,‘beplainti,fl' oridefendant, in which4a state, shall"
alledgei :1‘ direct’, aAremote,<'or, a contingent, interest.“ ' .' K‘ '
,‘Thisconcise View of the’ consequence of the adtferse icon- ,
struction, must, I think, demonstrate the propriety ofconex
, Tiining the prohibition of the amendment, to the commence-f" . ..
“ ', ment and Eprosecutionrof any suits, in law,for, eguity, by'.'af
‘ cit'azen,;or :1 foreigner,‘ dircctly'and nominally againsltia,s‘tat,'eE.‘ ,
iibut O,lmstead’s suit was not within the terms ‘of the arnend-‘
', - ment,.-as -it was an ailnziralty suit; and as it tvas’not'coIrn-?"7 '.
, mencga oriprosecutedtagazfnst the state of Pennsylyattia,
1 2. "In the next place,‘ however, it is’to he -shewn,; 'that'the:
T state was not, upon" any“le'ga1‘prin,ciple,' a"p'arty'to‘ the7suit‘;1 ff.‘ ‘
,nor;.even interested in its eyent.M Whennthe ,'amendmei:'t‘.’o ’
, . , Vprohibintshthe comniencetncht of, aisuit agajnsntizestate, it,” .
' evitlently, refers to the opensact;ofUtheplaintiff, and.not,tn9‘,i‘s T;
‘V thejlatent inierestof the state; to the process, which ,.the’;,,
plaintifl‘ employs for thecommencement of a suit (against, tlgctq
state, and not to any.collatera1 claim ofthcvstate, which (as she; )
pleases) may, or may not, he asserted. I ,atlmit,r thenfjthilitt
, a. suit in law. or equity, cannot be brought agaim-t’a state“,-‘or,
' . vinother, words, that a state cannothe made aparty,t:’cy".endaz2t‘ "
tosuch a suit; and govenrnor Mflsfcan himself, irrthe jrnes.-”
suage ‘of the. 31st ofiJanu;ary‘ 1803, expre‘ssly<stntes'-‘to=tht=,.
a
, ' 1‘ See the case of Hifrlilbcifzcrfsq 1‘m2.=e'Q.,1ia,ugza:, and the cases there refuted ‘’ It
., ,to,4.'I)a1(as’.:I:’q>o'r:t-392. ‘ A ..P< -' -