Joseph Beers, Use of William Platenius, As Administrator of James Holford, Deceased Plaintiff In Error v. the State of Arkansas William Platenius, Administrator of James Holford, Deceased Plaintiff In Error v. the State of Arkansas William Platenius, Administrator of James Holford, Deceased Plaintiff In Error v. the State of Arkansas
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | TANEY |
| Citation | 20 How. 527,61 U.S. 527,15 L.Ed. 991 |
| Parties | JOSEPH D. BEERS, USE OF WILLIAM A. PLATENIUS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES HOLFORD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. WILLIAM A. PLATENIUS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES HOLFORD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. WILLIAM A. PLATENIUS, ADMINISTRATOR OF JAMES HOLFORD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF ARKANSAS |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1857 |
THESE three cases depended upon the same principle, and are therefore classed together. The report in the first-named case will apply to them all. It was a case which was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, by a writ of error, issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Page 528
It was argued by Mr. Pike for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Hempstead for the defendant.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action of covenant, brought in the Circuit Court for Pulaski county, in the State of Arkansas, to recover the interest due on sundry bonds issued by the State, and which the State had failed to pay according to its contract.
The Constitution of the State provides, that 'the General Assembly shall direct by law in what courts and in what manner suits may be commenced against the State.' And in pursuance of this provision, a law was accordingly passed; and it is admitted that the present suit was brought in the proper court, and in the manner authorized by that law.
The suit was instituted in the Circuit Court on the 21st of November, 1854. And after it was brought, and while it was pending in the Circuit Court, the Legislature passed an act, which was approved on the 7th of December, 1854, which provided, 'that in every case in which suits or any proceedings had been instituted to enforce the collection of any bond or bonds issued by the State, or the interest thereon, before any judgment or decree should be rendered, the bonds should be produced and filed in the office of the clerk, and not withdrawn until final determination of the suit or proceedings, and full payment of the bonds and all interest thereon; and might then be withdrawn, cancelled, and filed with the State treasurer, by order of the court, but not otherwise.' And the act further provided, that in every case in which any such suit or proceeding had been or might be instituted, the court should, at the first term after the commencement of the suit or proceeding, whether at law or in equity, or whether by original or cross bill, require the original bond or bonds to be produced and filed; and if that were not done, and the bonds filed and left to remain filed, the court should, on the same day, dismiss the suit, proceeding, or cross bill.
Afterwards, on the 25th of June, 1855, the State appeared to the suit, by its attorney, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woodruff, 29601
...In notes to this section the author cited South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832, 834, 25 L.Ed. 973; Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 20 HOW 527, 15 L.Ed. 991; Ex parte State, 52 Ala. 231, 23 Am. Rep. 567; McDowell v. Fuller, Warden of Michigan Reformatory at Ionia, 169 Mich. 332......
-
Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, No. 85661–3.
...Consortium, Inc. v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 780 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991 (1857)). Nothing in the agreements shows consent to be sued by those not parties to the contract. Because there has been no waiver of sovere......
-
Kristensen v. Strinden, No. 10422
...can be sued as defendant in any court in this country without their consent"]; Beers v. State of Arkansas, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991, 992 (1857) ["It is an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, or ......
-
Hurst v. Texas Dep't of Assistive & Rehab. Serv., No. CIV. DR-03-CA-104-AM.
..."The decision to waive that immunity, however, `is altogether voluntary on the part of the sovereignty."' Id. (quoting Beers v. Ark., 61 U.S. 527, 20 How. 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991 (1857)). As the Fifth Circuit has illustrated, "[w]hen a state consents to suit or waives its Eleventh Amendment ......
-
Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, No. 87-1207
...that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991 (1858). We cannot conclude that § 1983 was intended to disregard the well-established immunity of a State from being sued without its consent.7 Page 68 The le......
-
Seminole Tribe Florida v. Florida, 9412
...fundamental " 'jurisprudence in all civilized nations.' " Hans, 134 U.S., at 17, 10 S.Ct., at 508, quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991 (1858); see also The Federalist No. 81, p. 487 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (sovereign immunity "is the general......
-
State v. Woodruff, 29601
...In notes to this section the author cited South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832, 834, 25 L.Ed. 973; Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527, 20 HOW 527, 15 L.Ed. 991; Ex parte State, 52 Ala. 231, 23 Am. Rep. 567; McDowell v. Fuller, Warden of Michigan Reformatory at Ionia, 169 Mich.......
-
Auto. United Trades Org. v. State, No. 85661–3.
...Consortium, Inc. v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 780 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 527, 529, 15 L.Ed. 991 (1857)). Nothing in the agreements shows consent to be sued by those not parties to the contract. Because there has been no waiver of sovere......