Railroad Company v. Tennessee
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 101 U.S. 337,25 L.Ed. 960 |
| Parties | RAILROAD COMPANY v. TENNESSEE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed briefs by Mr. Benjamin J. Lea, Attorney-General of Tennessee, and Mr. J. B. Heiskell, for the State; and by Mr. George Hoadly and Mr. E. L. Andrews, contra.
On the 19th of January, 1838, the State of Tennessee established a bank in its own name and for its own benefit, and pledged its faith and credit to give indemnity for all loses arising from any deficiency in the funds specifically appropriated as capital. The State was the only stockholder, and entitled to all the profits of the business. The bank was by its charter capable of suing and being sued. At that time the Constitution of the State contained this provision: 'Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct.' Art. 1, sect. 17. No law had then been passed giving effect to this express grant of power, but in 1855 it was enacted that actions might be instituted against the State under the same rules and regulations that govern actions between private citizens, process being served on the district attorney of the district in which the suit was instituted. Code, sect. 2807. No power was given the courts to enforce their judgments, and the money could only be got through an appropriation by the legislature.
In 1865, this law was repealed, and after that there was no law prescribing the manner or the courts in which suits could be brought against the State. On the 16th of February, 1866, an act was passed to wind up and settle the affairs of the bank, under which an assignment of all the property was made to Samuel Watson, trustee. Afterwards, on the 16th of May, 1866, the State and the trustee filed a bill in equity, in the Chancery Court at Nashville, against the bank and its creditors, for an account of debts and assets and a decree of distribution. At the November Term, 1872, of the court, the Memphis and Charlestown Railroad Company was admitted as a defendant to this suit, and given leave to file a cross-bill. This cross-bill was accordingly filed, and set forth an indebtedness from the bank to the railroad company, which accrued while the law allowing suits against the State was in existence, and sought to enforce the liability of the State under the indemnity clause of the charter. To this bill both the State and Watson, the trustee, demurred, and assigned for cause, among others, that the State could not be sued. The demurrer was sustained by the Chancery Court, and the cross-bill dismissed. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court of the State, where the decree below was affirmed, upon the express ground that the repeal of the law authorizing suits against the State was valid, and did not impair the obligation of the contract which the railroad company had. All other questions were waived by the court, and the decision placed entirely on the ground that as the State could not be sued in its own courts, the bill must be dismissed. To reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought.
The question we have to decide is not whether the State is liable for the debts of the bank to the railroad company, but whether it can be sued in its own courts to enforce that liability. The principle is elementary that a State cannot be sued in its own courts without its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElroy v. Swart
...11 Wall. 178; Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199, 201; Carr v. U.S. 98 U.S. 433, 437; U.S. v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337; Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832; U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196; S.C. 1 S.Ct. 240; State v. Jumel, 2 S.Ct. 128; Hans v. State of Louisiana, 2......
-
Lynch v. United States Wilner v. Same
...30; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527—529, 15 L.Ed. 991; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. 188, 195, 19 L.Ed. 35; Memphis & C. Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337, 25 L.Ed. 960; South & N. A. Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832, 25 L.Ed. 973; In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505, 8 S.Ct. 164, 3......
-
Donohue v. United States
...20 How. (61 U.S.) 527-529 15 L.Ed. 991; Gordon v. United States, 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 188, 195 19 L.Ed. 35; Memphis & C. Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337 25 L.Ed. 960; South & N.A. Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832 25 L.Ed. 973; In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505 8 S.Ct. 164, 31 L.Ed. 2......
-
State ex rel. Twichell v. Hall
...v. Girard et al. (C. C.) 46 Fed. 500;General Oil Co. v. Crain, 117 Tenn. 82, 95 S. W. 824, 121 Am. St. Rep. 967; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337, 25 L. Ed. 960;Raudabaugh v. State, 96 Ohio St. 513, 118 N. E. 102. The Supreme Courts of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Washington, and Wi......
-
Pleading sovereign immunity: the doctrinal underpinnings of Hans v. Louisiana and Ex Parte Young.
...during the Marshall era, the Court asserted these as obvious truisms--both for federal and state courts. See, e.g., R.R. Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U.S. 337, 339 (1880) (asserting the "elementary" principle that a state cannot be sued in its own courts without its (200.) McComb, 92 U.S. at 541. ......