Citation network
In Re Ayres
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 05, 1887
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
-
as presented by the whole record, and not in every case by a reference to the nominal parties of the record. Osborn v. BankSearch
-
not be attached for contempt in disobeying the restraining order heretofore granted in the suit of Cooper et al. v. MaryeSearch
-
S. 446 contempt in his disobedience of said order, and that he do forthwith dismiss the suit of The Commonwealth v. TheSearch
-
decrees of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia in the suit of Cooper et al. v. MaryeSearch
-
of contempt by his disobedience of said order and requiring him forthwith to dismiss the suit of The Commonwealth v. TheSearch
-
in violation of the Page 123 U. S. 458 restraining order heretofore made in the cause of Cooper and others v. MaryeSearch
-
U. S. 287 . This, it is true, is not in harmony with what was said by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. BankSearch
-
the point as involved in that case was stated by Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the Court in Davis v. GraySearch
-
But what was said by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. BankSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Chief Justice Marshall himself in the opinion of the Court delivered by him in the case of The Governor of Georgia v. MadrazoSearch
-
Pet. 110, 26 U. S. 123 -124. After quoting the paragraphs from the opinion in the case of Osborn v. BankSearch
-
of the United States, above extracted, the Chief Justice mentioned the case of Georgia v. BrailsfordSearch
-
from. See also Ex Parte Madrazzo, 7 Pet. 627. This view was reiterated by this Court in Kentucky v. DennisonSearch
-
Accordingly, in Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
a suit against the state is one of jurisdiction. The very question was presented in the cases of New Hampshire v. LouisianaSearch
-
and New York v. LouisianaSearch
-
The converse of that case is to be found in Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
The conclusions in the case of Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
were justified by what had previously been decided by this Court in the cases of Louisiana v. JumelSearch
-
and Elliott v. WiltzSearch
-
is said to be justified by the authority of certain language in the opinion of this Court in the case of Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
for which the state cannot be held responsible. In that aspect, the case does not differ in principle from Marye v. ParsonsSearch
-
court by process served upon its governor and attorney general according to the precedents in such cases. New Jersey v. NewSearch
-
The principal authority relied upon to maintain this proposition is the judgment of this Court in the case of Osborn v. BankSearch
-
under which they professed to act was void. In pursuance of the principles adjudged in the case of Osborn v. BankSearch
-
officers of the state threatening the distraint complained of. The grounds of this jurisdiction were stated in Allen v. BaltimoreSearch
-
are personally and individually liable. This principle was plainly stated in the opinion of the court in Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
for the damages occasioned thereby. This principle is illustrated and enforced by the case of United States v. LeeSearch
-
for the specific performance of the contract against the state by name it is admitted could not be brought. In Hagood v. SouthernSearch
-
contract itself, for the injurious consequences of acts done or omitted by them. Accordingly, it was held in Carter v. GreenhowSearch
-
were entered into are a part of the agreement itself, and constitute a substantial part of its obligation. Louisiana v. NewSearch
-
its original immunity without any violation of the obligation of its contract in the constitutional sense. Beers v. ArkansasSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. TennesseeSearch
-
legal interest. In respect to the latter class of cases, we repeat what was said by this Court in Board of Liquidation v. McCombSearch
-
An example and illustration of this class will be found in Seibert v. LewisSearch
-
In contradistinction to these classes of cases, for the reasons given, we adjudge the suit of Cooper and Others v. MaryeSearch
-
by the circuit court to be guilty of contempt in refusing to obey the order of that court in the case of Cooper v. MaryeSearch
-
in the opinion of the Court, upon which the discharge of the petitioners is ordered -- namely that the case of Cooper v. MaryeSearch
-
suits be instituted and prosecuted. This seems to me an obvious conclusion. The reason given in the bill in Cooper v. MaryeSearch
-
opinion of the majority because of language in it expressing approval of the positions taken by the Court in Louisiana v. JumelSearch
-
ordinance of repudiation embodied in the new Constitution of Louisiana. At the same time, I also expressed, in Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
what I there said. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. As I adhere to the views expressed by me in Louisiana v. JumelSearch
-
U. S. 801 , and Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
U. S. 458 , and as I concurred in the judgments in Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial