Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/421

1793.
$\scriptstyle {\underbrace {\quad \quad \quad } }$

 

February Term, 1793.

 

 

Oswald, Adminstrator, versus the State of New-York.

 

Proclamation was made in this cause, “that any person having authority to appear for the State of New-York is required to appear accordingly;” and no person appearing it was ordered, on motion of Coxe for the Plaintiff,

By the Court:—Unless the State appears by the first day of next Term to the above suit, or shew cause to the contrary, judgment will be entered by default against the said state.^[1]

 

The State of Georgia versus Brailsford, et al.

 

Bill in equity.⁠This cause was again brought before the Court, upon a motion by Randolph, to dissolve the Injunction, which had been issued, and to dismiss the Bill.^[2] He assigned two grounds in support of his motion:—1st. That the State of Georgia had no remedy at law to recover the Debt in question; and 2nd. That even if there was a remedy at law, there was no equitable right to justify the present form of proceeding. The motion was opposed by Ingersoll and Dallas; and after argument, the opinions of the judges (in the absence of Johnson, Justice,) were delivered as follows.

Iredell, Justice.⁠It is my misfortune to dissent from the opinion entertained by the rest of the court upon the present occasion; but I am bound to decide, according to the dictates of my own judgment.

The State of Georgia complains, that having a right to the debt in question, that right has been discussed and over ruled without giving her an opportunity to be heard in support of it, though she applied to the Circuit Court for that purpose. It is another grievance alledged, that a Writ of Error has not been

instituted

1. See ant. p. 401 and also post.⁠Chisholm, executor, versus Georgia. Cutting, administrator, versus South Carolina. Grayson versus Virginia.
2. See ant. p. 402, 3 vol. p. 1.