US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 28 U. S. 461 (1830)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 28 U. S. 461 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

New Jersey v. New York, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 461 461 (1830)

New Jersey v. New York

28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 461


The subpoena issued on the filing of a bill in which the State of New Jersey were complainant and the State of New York was defendant was served upon the Governor and Attorney General of New York sixty days before the return day, the day of the service and return inclusive. A second subpoena issued which was served on the Governor of New York only, the attorney general being absent. There was no appearance by the State of New York.

By the Court:

"This is not like the case of several defendants, where a service on one might be good, though not on another. Here, the service prescribed by the rule is to be on the governor and on the attorney general. Service on one is not sufficient to entitle the Court to proceed."

Upon an application by the counsel for the State of New Jersey that a day might be assigned to argue the question of the jurisdiction of this Court to proceed in the case, the Court said it had no difficulty in assigning a day. It might be as well to give notice to the State of New York, as it might employ counsel in the interim. If, indeed, the argument should be merely ex parte, the Court could not feel bound by its decision if the State of New York desired to have the question again argued.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™