The State of Rhode Island v. the State of Massachusetts

Decision Date01 January 1839
Citation13 Pet. 23,10 L.Ed. 41,38 U.S. 23
PartiesTHE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

MR. SOUTHARD, for the complainants, stated that the state of Rhode Island, with the consent of the Court, obtained at last term, had amended the bill filed in this case; and he moved the Court for a rule on the state of Massachusetts to answer within a short time, so that the case might be disposed of during the term.

Mr. Webster stated, that, although not authorized to appear in the case, he thought it proper to say that the opinions of the Court delivered at the last term in this cause had been submitted to the government of Massachusetts. It was a short time before the adjournment of the legislature of the state that they were communicated to them. The subject will be again presented by the governor to the legislature, at the session now held; and it is expected that some action upon it will take place. In the posture in which the case stood at the last term of this Court, the attorney general of the state of Massachusetts has not thought it proper to do any thing. The movements of such bodies, as the defendants in this case, are slow.

Mr. Hazard had no objection to an allowance of time to the defendants to answer. He had a strong impression that he had seen some proceedings of the legislature of Massachusetts, at its last session in 1838, by which the direction of this case was left to the counsel employed by the state. He did not think that the slow movements of such bodies should be allowed, when other parties are concerned. He desired that a time for the filing of an answer, by the state of Massachusetts, should be definitely fixed.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.——

A motion was made by the complainant on Saturday last for an order on the defendant to answer the amended bill of the complainant, on or before the 26th day of the present month of January. In deciding upon this motion it is necessary to refer to the orders of the Court heretofore passed in this case, and to see what steps have been taken under them.

At the last term leave was given to Rhode Island to withdraw the general replication filed in the case, and to amend the bill: the amendment to be made on or before the first Monday of August last. At the same term, upon the motion of the counsel for Massachusetts, leave was granted to withdraw the plea which the defendant had filed, and also to strike out the appearance of Massachusetts to the suit.

Nothing has since been done by the defendant under this leave, for reasons which have been stated at the bar. And as the appearance of Massachusetts has not yet been withdrawn, and as Rhode Island has a right to the usual orders to enable that state to proceed in the suit, the Court in passing them must look to the condition of the case as it appears on the record, and consider Massachusetts as still in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Commonwealth of Virginia v. State of West Virginia
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1918
    ... ... in order to allay discord between the states, as New York had previously done and as Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia ... Page 591 ... subsequently did. 2 ... Page 598 ... the Privy Council was stated in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 739, 9 L. Ed. 1233, et seq., and will be found reviewed in ... ...
  • Hinderlider v. La Plata River Cherry Creek Ditch Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1938
    ...Id., 11 Pet. 226, 9 L.Ed. 697; Id., 12 Pet. 657, 9 L.Ed. 1233; Massachusetts v. Rhode Island, 12 Pet. 755, 9 L.Ed. 1272; Rhode Island v. Mass., 13 Pet. 23, 10 L.Ed. 41; Id., 14 Pet. 210, 10 L.Ed. 423; Id., 15 Pet. 233, 10 L.Ed. 721; Id., 4 How. 591, 11 L.Ed. 1116; was finally settled by a C......
  • State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins Co of New Orleans
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1888
    ...Const. § 1681; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461, 5 Pet. 284, and 6 Pet. 323; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 724, 736, 754, 13 Pet. 23, 14 Pet. 210, 15 Pet. 233, and 4 How. 591, 628; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, and 10 How. 1; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Alabama v. Georg......
  • State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1900
    ... ...           In March, 1832, the state of Rhode Island filed in this court a bill against the state of Massachusetts, for the settlement of the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT