FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065  
1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   >>   >|  
hed from appearing in a similar suit to defend its officials,[52] and by general law specifically consenting to suit in the federal courts. Such consent must be clear and specific and consent to suit in its own courts does not imply a waiver of immunity in the federal courts.[53] It follows, therefore, that in consenting to be sued, the States, like the National Government, may attach such conditions to suit as they deem fit. Notes [1] 2 Dall. 419 (1793). [2] Justice Frankfurter dissenting in Larson _v._ Domestic & Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 708 (1949). [3] 6 Wheat. 264, 411-412 (1821). [4] 9 Wheat. 738 (1824). [5] Ibid. 850-858. [6] 1 Pet. 110 (1828). [7] Ex parte Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 487 (1887). [8] Osborn _v._ Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. at 858, 859, 868. [9] Lincoln County _v._ Luning, 133 U.S. 529 (1890). [10] Hopkins _v._ Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U.S. 636 (1911). _See also_ Bank of the United States _v._ Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat. 904 (1824), where a State bank was held liable to suit although the State owned a portion of its stock, and Briscoe _v._ Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257 (1837), and Bank of Kentucky _v._ Wister, 2 Pet. 318 (1829), where the State bank was held liable to suit even though the State owned all of the stock. Compare, however, Murray _v._ Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151 (1909), which held that a State in engaging in the retail liquor business does not surrender its immunity to suit for transaction of a nongovernmental nature. Here the State conducted the business directly rather than through the medium of a corporation. [11] Hans _v._ Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890); Fitts _v._ McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 524 (1899); Duhne _v._ New Jersey, 251 U.S. 311, 313 (1920); Ex parte New York, 256 U.S. 490 (1921). [12] Monaco _v._ Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 329 (1934). [13] Smith _v._ Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (1900). [14] New Hampshire _v._ Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883). However, this rule does not preclude a suit by a State to collect debts which have been assigned to it and the proceeds of which will remain with it. South Dakota _v._ North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 (1904) [15] 134 U.S. 1, 11 (1890). [16] 292 U.S. 313, 328-332 (1934). [17] For the liability of the States to suit by the United States _see_ the discussion of the right of the United States to sue under article III, Sec. 2, _supra_, pp. 584-585. [18] Tindal _v._ Wesley, 167 U.S. 2
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055   1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065  
1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   1081   1082   1083   1084   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

States

 

United

 
courts
 

liable

 

Louisiana

 

federal

 

consent

 
consenting
 

business

 

immunity


Kentucky

 

Jersey

 

surrender

 

liquor

 
transaction
 

nongovernmental

 

retail

 

engaging

 

nature

 

corporation


McGhee

 

medium

 
conducted
 
directly
 
Reeves
 

liability

 
discussion
 

Carolina

 
Tindal
 
Wesley

article
 

Dakota

 
Hampshire
 
Mississippi
 

Distilling

 

However

 
proceeds
 
remain
 

assigned

 
preclude

collect

 

Monaco

 

Justice

 

Frankfurter

 

dissenting

 

Larson

 
appearing
 

Domestic

 
Foreign
 

conditions