Grayson v. Virginia

3 U.S. 320, 1 L. Ed. 619, 3 Dall. 320, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 409
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedAugust 12, 1796
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 3 U.S. 320 (Grayson v. Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grayson v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 320, 1 L. Ed. 619, 3 Dall. 320, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 409 (1796).

Opinion

By the Court

:—After a particular examination of the powers veiled in this Court, in caufes of Equity, as well as in caufcs of Admiralty and Maritime jurifdidlion, w>e colled! a general rule for .the .government of- out proceedings; with a diferetionary, authority, however, to deviate from that rule, where its application wou’dbe injurious or iinpradücabio. The general rule preferibes to us an adoption of that practice,.whiqb is founded on the cufíoro and ufage ofCourls of Admiralty arid ■ Equity, conilituted on fimilar principles; but ftill, It is thought, that we are alfa autbórifcd to, make fuch deviations as are ne-ceffar'y to adapt the procefs and rules'of the Court to the pecu- • iiarcircumftances of this country, fubjedl to the interpolation, alteration, and controul, of the Legiilature' * .

W e have* therefore, agreed to malee the following general Orders; and the Cdunfel, in the prefent cafe, will take his meafures accordingly. • . '

I.. Ordered That when procefs at Common Law, dr in Equity, ihall iffue- againft a State, the fame íhall be ferved upon the Governor, or Chief Executive Magiilrate, and the " Attorney-General, of fuch State.

*321 2. Ordered, That procefs of fubpcena iffuing opt of this Court, in any fuit in Equity, fhall be ferved on the Defendant fixty days before the return day of the faid procefs : and, further, that if the Defendant, on fuch fervice of the fubpcena, (ball not appear alt the return day contained therein, the complainant fhall be at liberty to proceed ex parte.

Lewis the.n obferved, that the fubpcena in this caf-, had been iffued on the fame principles j but as the orders could only operate in futuro, he thought it beft to withdraw his ¡notiomfer a difiringas, and to pray that an alias fubpcena might be awarded ; which was, accordingly, done.

*

Seethe Judicial Act, f. 14. The Act to regulate Procc.%s.ih the Í'ediíra'Courts, iV ». ■'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Roberts
76 N.E.2d 832 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1948)
State v. District Court of Salt Lake County
128 P.2d 471 (Utah Supreme Court, 1942)
Hogston v. Bell
112 N.E. 883 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1916)
State Ex Rel. Haskell v. Huston
97 P. 982 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Henry v. State
39 So. 856 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1905)
Studabaker v. Markley
34 N.E. 606 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
In re Finks
41 F. 383 (W.D. Virginia, 1889)
Chaffraix v. Board of Liquidation
11 F. 638 (E.D. Louisiana, 1882)
Whitford v. . the Panama Railroad Company
23 N.Y. 465 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)
Commonwealth of Ky. v. DENNISON, GOVERNOR, &C.
65 U.S. 66 (Supreme Court, 1861)
The State of Massachusetts Ads.
37 U.S. 755 (Supreme Court, 1838)
State of New Jersey v. the State of New York
28 U.S. 461 (Supreme Court, 1830)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 U.S. 320, 1 L. Ed. 619, 3 Dall. 320, 1796 U.S. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grayson-v-virginia-scotus-1796.