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
| Decision Date | 01 December 1857 |
| 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 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
It was argued by Mr. Pike for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Hempstead for the defendant.
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any judgment or decree should be rendered, the bonds should be produced and filed in the office of the clerk, and not withdrawn until final determination of the suit or proceedings, and full payment of the bonds and all interest thereon; and might then be withdrawn, cancelled, and filed with the State treasurer, by order of the court, but not otherwise.'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, without pleading to or answering the declaration of the plaintiff, moved the court to require him to file immediately in open court the bonds on which the suit was brought, according to the act of Assembly above mentioned; and if the same were not filed, that the suit be dismissed.
Upon this motion, after argument by counsel, the court passed an order directing the plaintiff to produce and file in court, forthwith, the bonds mentioned and described in the declaration. But he refused to file them, and thereupon the court adjudged that the suit be dismissed, with costs.
This judgment was afterwards affirmed in the Supreme Court of the State, and this writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finnell v. Pitts, 8 Div. 133.
... ... H ... Kilgore. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal ... Affirmed ... commissioners of the state, are alleged to have built a state ... highway ... We find ... no reversible error in the record, and the rehearing is ... granted, ... U.S., 9 How. 386, 13 L.Ed ... 185; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 15 L.Ed. 991; ... estates of deceased persons, should proceed to try parties ... for ... 746; Thurston v. City of St ... Joseph, 51 Mo. 510, 11 Am. St. Rep. 463; 1 L. R. A ... ...
-
McElroy v. Swart
... ... belonging to the state. During the winter the complainant cut ... and ... Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 ... How. 527, 529; Nations v ... ...
-
Gainer v. School Board of Jefferson County, Ala.
... ... GAINER, Member of Class Represented by William J. Bolden, Plaintiff, ... SCHOOL BOARD OF ... out of the public funds or property of the State of Alabama 14 in this civil contempt proceeding, ... 101, 45 S.Ct. 25, 69 L.Ed. 190; Beers, for Use of Platenius v. State of Arkansas, 1857, ... ...
-
Lynch v. United States Wilner v. Same
... ... In each, the plaintiff is the beneficiary under a policy for yearly ... any regulation promulgated by the Administrator. Prior to the Economy Act, no attempt was made to ... be a private individual, a municipality, a state, or the United States. Rights against the United ... 12, 17, 14 L.Ed. 30; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527—529, 15 L.Ed. 991; ... (including preparation of the bodies) of deceased veterans of any war to the places of burial ... ...
-
The plenary power of states to infringe intellectual property under the cloak of sovereign immunity.
...77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 273, 294 (2002). (192.) Id. at 300 (emphasis added); Florida Prepaid I, 527 U.S. at 676 (citing Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527 (1858)). Allowing a State to assert sovereign immunity at trial would frustrate two basic ideas. First, if the court can "ascertain that the state......