Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798)
U.S. Supreme Court
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 378 378 (1798)
Hollingsworth v. Virginia
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378
Syllabus
The amendment of the Constitution of the United States by which the judicial power of the United States was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the exercise of jurisdiction in any case past or future.
The decision of the court, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419, produced a proposition in Congress for amending the Constitution of the United States according to the following terms:
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law and equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number of states, Lee, Attorney General, submitted this question to the Court whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits against any one of the United States by citizens of another state.
U.S. Supreme Court
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 378 378 (1798)Hollingsworth v. Virginia
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378
Syllabus
The amendment of the Constitution of the United States by which the judicial power of the United States was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or citizens of another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the exercise of jurisdiction in any case past or future.
The decision of the court, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419, produced a proposition in Congress for amending the Constitution of the United States according to the following terms:
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law and equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number of states, Lee, Attorney General, submitted this question to the Court whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits against any one of the United States by citizens of another state.
The Court, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion that the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
