Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)

Last updated
Georgia v. Brailsford
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 4–7, 1794
Decided February 7, 1794
Full case nameState of Georgia v. Samuel Brailsford & others
Citations3 U.S. 1 ( more )
3 Dall. 1; 1 L. Ed. 483; 1794 U.S. LEXIS 102
Holding
Sequestration of debts by states during the American Revolution did not permanently vest those debts in the states.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell
William Paterson
Case opinion
MajorityJay, joined unanimously

Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794), was an early United States Supreme Court case holding that debts sequestered but not declared forfeit by states during the American Revolution could be recovered by bondholders. [1] It is significant as the only reported jury trial in the history of the Supreme Court. [2]

Contents

Background

During the American Revolution, the state of Georgia passed a law that sequestered debts owed to British creditors. The Treaty of Paris between the United States and Great Britain asserted the validity of debts held by creditors on both sides. Samuel Brailsford, a British subject and holder of such a debt, attempted to recover from Georgia resident James Spalding. The case was filed directly in the United States Supreme Court, rather than in a lower court, under its constitutionally defined original jurisdiction. [2] Georgia intervened in the Supreme Court, claiming that the debt was owed instead to the state. Brailsford was joined by Messrs. Hopton and Powell, residents of South Carolina, who were partners in the debt. Because the Court was trying a common law dispute, it impaneled a jury for the case.

Decision

The Court concluded that the sequestration law did not transfer the debt interest to the state. After being advised of that opinion, the jury found for the defendants. [1]

Power of juries

Chief Justice Jay's instructions to the jury have attracted much interest surrounding their implications for jury nullification. Jay noted it as a "good old rule" that juries should judge questions of fact while deferring to the court on questions of law; yet he observed that the jury could, if it chose, judge both to arrive at a decision. [1] As mentioned, the jury neither challenged the Court's conclusions of law nor needed to examine the facts, which the parties had agreed upon. [3]

Subsequent jurisprudence has tended to discount the Brailsford court's view. In United States v. Morris (1851), Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis commented on the apparent inconsistency of Jay's recorded instructions, going so far as to suggest that the record was inaccurate and, in any case, not in line with recent English or American law. Sparf v. United States (1895) repeated Curtis's doubts and found that federal courts had no obligation to give similar instructions. [4]

Stanford Law School fellow Lochlan F. Shelfer has examined the case record in depth. He notes that the jury was a special jury, drawn from a pool of merchants informed on matters of law relevant to the case. Their relation to the court, then, was different from that of a typical fact-finding jury. Shelfer concludes that the instructions were neither anomalous nor an endorsement of jury nullification but rather reflected the immaturity of American merchant law and the reliance of courts on experts. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution Article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enumerating restrictions on ability to bring suit against states in federal courts.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Given its date, there was little available legal precedent. The case was superseded in 1795 by the Eleventh Amendment.

Jury nullification (US), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway, because the jurors consider that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favour of the defendant.

Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the jury rather than the judge to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively.

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), or Sparf and Hansen v. United States, was a United States Supreme Court case testing the admissibility of confessions by multiple defendants accused of the same crime, and the responsibility of juries.

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.

Stevenson v. Pemberton, 1 U.S. 3 (1760) is a decision of the Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial America under British law. In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 U.S. 9 (1764) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

John Jay American politician, diplomat, and Founding Father

John Jay was an American statesman, patriot, diplomat, Founding Father, abolitionist, negotiator, and signatory of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. He served as the second Governor of New York and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–1795). He directed U.S. foreign policy for much of the 1780s and was an important leader of the Federalist Party after the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788.

Georgia v. Brailsford is the name of three Supreme Court of the United States decisions:

Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 415 (1793), was a United States Supreme Court case continuing the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1792). Here, the court held that "upon a motion to dissolve that injunction, this court held that, if the state of Georgia had the title in the debt, she had an adequate remedy at law by action upon the bond; but, in order that the money might be kept for the party to whom it belonged, ordered the injunction to be continued till the next term, and, if Georgia should not then have instituted her action at common law, to be dissolved."

Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 402 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "[a] State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin payment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs".

Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 U.S. 6 (1794), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that French consuls in the United States cannot hear cases to determine the property rights of foreign ships captured by French vessels and brought into American ports. In this case Glass was an American shareholder in a captured Swedish vessel and sued to determine his rights in District Court. The Supreme Court determined that the District Courts of the United States have the exclusive right to hear admiralty cases.

Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796), also known as the British Debt Case, is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that treaties take precedence over state law under the U.S. Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties are supreme only if they do not contravene the Constitution.

A special jury, which is a jury selected from a special roll of persons with a restrictive qualification, could be used for civil or criminal cases, although in criminal cases only for misdemeanours such as seditious libel. The party opting for a special jury was charged a fee, which was 12 guineas just prior to abolition in England.

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States When cases are heard without going through lower courts

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States is limited to a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution, and further delineated by statute.

Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the status of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico under the Appointments Clause. The Court held that all officers of the United States are subject to the Appointments Clause even if their duties relate to Puerto Rico. However, the power they exercise must be primarily federal in nature for the Clause to apply. If the officer exercises powers primarily of a local nature, even if created by federal law, then the officer is not "of the United States" and is exempt from compliance with the Clause. As members of the Board are primarily concerned with the governance of Puerto Rico, even though their decisions have potentially nationwide consequences, their powers are primarily local in nature and need not be appointed in compliance with the Clause.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall. ) 1 (1794).
  2. 1 2 Shelfer, Lochlan F. (October 2013). "Special Juries in the Supreme Court". Yale Law Journal . 123 (1): 208–252. Archived from the original on June 30, 2017. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
  3. 1 2 Lochlan F. Shelfer, Special Juries in the Supreme Court, 123 Yale. L.J. 208 (2013).
  4. ↑ Sparf v. United States , 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.