Citation network
Rhode Island Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1838
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 657 (1838) U.S. Supreme Court Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. 12 Pet. 657 657 (1838) Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSearch
-
through a long series of years and cases to the present term, during which, in the case of Bank of the United States v. DanielsSearch
-
imposed by the Constitution, when given, left the states as they were before, as held by this Court in Poole v. FleegerSearch
-
The construction of such compact is a judicial question, and was so considered by this Court in Lessee of Sims v. IrvineSearch
-
Dall. 425-454, and in Marlatt v. SilkSearch
-
Barton v. WilliamsSearch
-
of the circuit court in such cases was distinctly and expressly asserted by this Court as early as 1799 in Fowler v. MillerSearch
-
S.P. 30 U. S. 5 Pet. 290. In Handly's Lessee v. AnthonySearch
-
any vacant land within the boundary of a state. Hence resulted the principles laid down by this Court in Harcourt v. GaillardSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
incidents, and remain so till the state makes some cession. The plain language of this Court in United States v. BevansSearch
-
who or what be the parties before them. These are the definitions of law as made in the great Maryland case of Barclay v. RussellSearch
-
existed or disappeared, according as a chancellor should decree as to boundary. Penn v. BaltimoreSearch
-
was competent to dismember royal, though it was not exercised on the chartered or proprietary provinces. McIntosh v. JohnsonSearch
-
King and Parliament, chancery could and did act on agreements between them as to their boundaries, in the case of Penn v. BaltimoreSearch
-
of title, relief as to rectories and tithes, which was a mere franchise, a plea to jurisdiction was overruled. Derby v. AtholSearch
-
the bishop had a right to the tithes he claimed. The same principle was settled in the case of Nabob of the Carnatic v. EastSearch
-
be served, with such process as will compel them to do justice to the defendant, was decided in Columbian Government v. RothschildSearch
-
Sim. 104. These cases were recognized in King of Spain v. MachadoSearch
-
also will consider the effect of the declaration of independence and treaty of peace in an action on a bond. Folliott v. OgdenSearch
-
question, whether it relates to the boundary of provinces, according to an agreement between the owners, as Penn v. BaltimoreSearch
-
power, for, had the Company not made the objection, by their answer, the court must have proceeded as in King of Spain v. MachadoSearch
-
it is monstrous to talk of existing rights, without correspondent remedies. 3 U. S. 3 Dall. 413. In New Jersey v. WilsonSearch
-
in the case was, whether Wilson held certain lands exempt from taxation. 11 U. S. 7 Cranch 164. In Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
United States, and depends on charters, laws, treaties, compacts, or cessions which relate to boundary. In Robinson v. CampbellSearch
-
which the Court decided. 16 U. S. 3 Wheat. 213, 16 U. S. 218 , 16 U. S. 224 . United States v. BevanSearch
-
decided, as a question of boundary, 16 U. S. 3 Wheat. 339, 16 U. S. 386 , as before stated. In Burton v. WilliamsSearch
-
to territory and boundary. 16 U. S. 3 Wheat. 529, 16 U. S. 533 , 16 U. S. 538 . In De La Croix v. ChamberlainSearch
-
U. S. 12 Wheat. 600. Accordingly, in Harcourt v. GailliardSearch
-
boundary between Florida and Georgia, on which the whole case turned. 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 524. In Henderson v. PoindexterSearch
-
on the Page 37 U. S. 746 subject. 25 U. S. 12 Wheat. 530, 25 U. S. 534 . In Patterson v. JenckesSearch
-
U. S. 11 Wheat. 380. In Foster & Elam v. NeilsonSearch
-
U. S. 314 -315. All the principles laid down in this case were fully considered and affirmed in the United States v. ArredondoSearch
-
for the Court. 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 710, 31 U. S. 735 , 31 U. S. 741 -743. In the United States v. PerchemanSearch
-
Elam v. NeilsonSearch
-
arising under it to be judicial, and Congress has confirmed the action of the court whenever necessary. In New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
as the authority to make it was derived from the legislative power only. The same objection was overruled in Penn v. BaltimoreSearch
-
and in Poole v. FleegerSearch
-
or be overruled, as not being a bar in law, though true in fact. In this state of the case, it is that of Nabob v. EastSearch
-
Congress in aid. In testing this objection by the common law, there can be no difficulty in decreeing, as in Penn v. BaltimoreSearch
-
and are therefore not within the grant of judicial power contained in the Constitution. In the case of New York v. ConnecticutSearch
-
In the case of Cherokee Nation v. StateSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rhode Island v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of Bank of the United States v. DanielsSearch
-
Lessee of Sims v. IrvineSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial