United States of America v. State of Michigan
Decision Date | 01 June 1903 |
Docket Number | O,No. 11,11 |
Citation | 47 L.Ed. 1103,23 S.Ct. 742,190 U.S. 379 |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Complainant , v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant . riginal |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The United States, by leave of court, duly filed in this court its original bill in equity against the state of Michigan, to which bill the defendant has filed a demurrer substantially for want of equity, and also because it appears therefrom that the complainant has been guilty of gross laches in regard to the matters therein set forth. It will be most convenient to set forth the bill, with the exception of some portions thereof which do not seem to be material, and it is as follows:
'To the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Equity:
'Philander C. Knox, Attorney General of the United States of America, for and in behalf of said United States, brings this bill of complaint against the state of Michigan, and thereupon your orator complains and says:
'First.
'That the said state of Michigan, for some years previous to the date first hereinafter mentioned, was desirous of procuring the construction of a canal and lock in the Saint Marys river, at or near Saint Marys falls, where Lake Superior empties into said river, and did at various times, by joint resolutions of the legislature thereof, importune the Congress of the United States to construct such a canal and lock on the Michigan side of said river, and was able, through the influence of its senators and representatives in Congress from said state, with the co-operation and influence of other states which might become directly affected in a desirable manner, to cause and procure said Congress to pass a law, which became operative on the 26th day of August, 1852, appropriating to the state of Michigan 750,000 acres of land, to be afterwards selected, to construct such ship canal and lock. Said act is in terms as follows:
'And you orator further shows that the legislature of the state of Michigan afterwards passed an act providing for the construction of a ship canal around the falls of Saint Mary, the same being number thirty-eight of the session laws of the state of Michigan for the year 1853. By this act the appropriation of land made by Congress as aforesaid was accepted, with all conditions therein expressed attached, and made obligatory upon the state of Michigan. By its said act, also, the governor was authorized to appoint a board of five commissioners and an engineer for the purpose of looking after the construction of said canal and lock; provisions were made relative to the contract proposed to be entered into for the construction of the canal; the expenses of surveying, locating, and constructing the same; the manner in which the expenses attendant upon such construction should be paid, which was substantially out of the lands so appropriated by Congress; the keeping of accounts connected with such construction; the turning out of lands to the contractor and subcontractor; and other matters connected with such work, such act being in terms as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Principality of Monaco v. State of Mississippi
...14 U.S. 621, 644, 645, 12 S.Ct. 488, 493, 36 L.Ed. 285; Id., 162 U.S. 1, 90, 16 S.Ct. 725, 40 L.Ed. 867; United States v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379, 396, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103; Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574, 581, 42 S.Ct. 406, 66 L.Ed. 771; United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 195......
-
United States v. Finn
...248, 250, 43 S.Ct. 306, 310, 67 L.Ed. 629, for the breach of which damages would be the only remedy. See: United States v. Michigan, 1903, 190 U.S. 379, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103; Northern Pacific Railway v. Townsend, 1903, 190 U.S. 267, 23 S.Ct. 671, 47 L.Ed. 1044; American Emigrant Co. ......
-
Great Northern Ry Co v. United States
...171, 19 S.Ct. 128, 43 L.Ed. 407; Northern Pacific Ry. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267, 23 S.Ct. 671, 47 L.Ed. 1044; United States v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103; Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Ely, 197 U.S. 1, 25 S.Ct. 302, 49 L.Ed. 639; Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Strin......
-
United States v. State of California
...298, 70 L.Ed. 539 (1926); United States v. Oklahoma, 261 U.S. 253, 43 S.Ct. 295, 67 L.Ed. 638 (1923); United States v. Michigan, 190 U.S. 379, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103 (1903); United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 12 S.Ct. 488, 36 L.Ed. 285 (1892); United States v. North Carolina, 136 U......