Oswald v. New York

Last updated • 3 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Oswald v. New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided February 14, 1792
Full case nameOswald, Administrator v. The State of New York
Citations2 U.S. 401 ( more )
2 Dall. 401; 1 L. Ed. 433; 1792 U.S. LEXIS 587
Holding
default against New York
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell

Oswald v. New York, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 401 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an individual sued a state.

Contents

No appearance was entered for the defendant state and default judgment was rendered against the state. This remains the only case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in which a citizen of a different state brought suit against a state where the state paid damages and court costs after a jury trial. [1]

Background

The origins of the case begin with John Holt, editor and writer whose printing presses were seized by the British for violating the Stamp Act. [2] Following the seizure of his servants and presses, Holt received the assistance of George Clinton and Philip Schuyler and opened the New-York Journal. In 1777 Holt was then hired by the State of New York through the Committee of Safety chaired by John Jay. The Committee authorized the payment of £200 for one year. Despite no other resolution being passed, Holt continued to serve as the state printer for laws and resolutions until his death in 1784. [1]

In this case the primary question was of payment for work performed. As late as 1783, Holt complained to the New York Senate about not being paid his annual salary. While no annual salary had been authorized and some work had been paid for by the State of New York, Holt argued that he was due funds that were not paid and he was forced to cease publication of his newspaper. [1] Upon Holt’s death, his widow Elizabeth Holt filed a claim with the New York State Auditor in the amount of £5,293 for salary and expenses as state printer. Upon review of the claim, the auditor paid £2,000 for expenses but denied the claim for salary noting that the work performed after the first year was performed in lieu of salary. Mrs. Holt pressed her claim to the legislature which also denied the claim. Following this, she sold the newspaper and moved to Philadelphia with her daughter and son-in-law Eleazer Oswald. [1]

When Elizabeth Holt died in 1788, her son-in-law, Eleazer Oswald then renewed the claim against the State of New York. Again presenting the case to Assembly, no relief was provided despite an attempt by the legislature to review the issue. With no relief from the legislature, Oswald filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court in February 1791 seeking $31,458.35 in salary and damages. [1]

Proceedings

Following the filing of the case, summons were dispatched to Governor George Clinton and New York Attorney General Aaron Burr. Governor Clinton referred the summons to the New York Assembly which failed to act or respond. A second summons was issued by the court in February 1792. In February 1793, when New York again failed to respond, Oswald's attorney requested a default be entered at the August session if the state again failed to appear. [3]

During the Fall Term of the court, attorney Jared Ingersoll appeared on behalf of the State of New York and filed a protest that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Before the motion was heard by the court, Oswald's attorney requested a postponement of the case. Before the resumption of the case at the next session, politics intervened. The New York General Assembly came under control of the Federalists who were in an ongoing battle with Governor Clinton and the Anti-Federalists. [3]

Opinion of the Court

Dallas records the case as follows:

Oswald, Administrator v. the State of New York

February Term, 1792

Summons. In this case the Marshall had returned the writ served; and now Sergeant moved for a distringas, to compel an appearance on the part of the State.

While, however, the court held the motion under advisement, it was voluntarily withdrawn, and the suit discontinued. [4]

Related Research Articles

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Clinton (vice president)</span> Vice president of the United States from 1805 to 1812

George Clinton was an American soldier, statesman, and Founding Father of the United States. A prominent Democratic-Republican, Clinton served as the fourth vice president of the United States from 1805 until his death in 1812. He also served as the first Governor of New York from 1777 to 1795 and again from 1801 to 1804. Along with John C. Calhoun, he is one of two vice presidents to hold office under two consecutive presidents. He was also the first vice-president to die in office.

The following table indicates the party of elected officials in the U.S. state of New York:

Bernard William Nussbaum was an American attorney, best known for having served as White House Counsel under President Bill Clinton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

<i>New York v. Connecticut</i> 1799 United States Supreme Court case

New York v. Connecticut, 4 U.S. 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. The case was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..

West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791) was docketed prior to West v. Barnes but settled before the Court heard the case: West was argued on August 2 and decided on August 3, 1791. Collet v. Collet (1792) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard. Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in West v. Barnes, which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decision.

The Saxbe fix, or salary rollback, is a mechanism by which the president of the United States, in appointing a current or former member of the United States Congress whose elected term has not yet expired, can avoid the restriction of the United States Constitution's Ineligibility Clause. That clause prohibits the president from appointing a current or former member of Congress to a civil office position that was created, or to a civil office position for which the pay or benefits were increased, during the term for which that member was elected until the term has expired. The rollback, first implemented by an Act of Congress in 1909, reverts the emoluments of the office to the amount they were when that member began his or her elected term.

The Ineligibility Clause is a provision in Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that makes each incumbent member of Congress ineligible to hold an office established by the federal government during their tenure in Congress; it also bars officials in the federal government's executive and judicial branches from simultaneously serving in either the U.S. House or Senate. The purpose of the clause is twofold: first, to protect the separation of powers philosophy ; and second, to prevent Congress from conspiring to create offices or increase federal officials' salaries with the expectation that members of Congress would later be appointed to these posts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin circuit courts</span>

The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

Van Staphorst v. Maryland, 2 U.S. 401 (1791), was the first case docketed with the United States Supreme Court. Although the court agreed to hear and decide the case, the suit was settled before oral arguments. Collet v. Collet was the first appellate case docketed with the court, but it was dropped before arguments. West v. Barnes was the first case decided by the court.

The People of the State of New York v. Harry Croswell, commonly known and cited as People v. Croswell, is an important case in the evolution of United States defamation law. It was a criminal libel case brought against a Federalist journalist named Harry Croswell for his statements about a number of public officials, including then-President Thomas Jefferson.

Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30 and May 1, 1900, to decide the outcome of the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. The litigants were Republican gubernatorial candidate William S. Taylor and Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial candidate J. C. W. Beckham. In the November 7, 1899, election, Taylor received 193,714 votes to Democrat William Goebel's 191,331. This result was certified by a 2–1 decision of the state's Board of Elections. Goebel challenged the election results on the basis of alleged voting irregularities, and the Democrat-controlled Kentucky General Assembly formed a committee to investigate Goebel's claims. Goebel was shot on January 30, 1900, one day before the General Assembly approved the committee's report declaring enough Taylor votes invalid to swing the election to Goebel. As he lay dying of his wounds, Goebel was sworn into office on January 31, 1900. He died on February 3, 1900, and Beckham ascended to the governorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial independence in Singapore</span> Judicial independence in the nation

Judicial independence is protected by Singapore's Constitution, statutes such as the State Courts Act and Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and the common law. Independence of the judiciary is the principle that the judiciary should be separated from legislative and executive power, and shielded from inappropriate pressure from these branches of government, and from private or partisan interests. It is crucial as it serves as a foundation for the rule of law and democracy.

Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass, assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">46th New York State Legislature</span> New York state legislative session

The 46th New York State Legislature, consisting of the New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly, met from January 7 to April 24, 1823, during the first year of Joseph C. Yates's governorship, in Albany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleazer Oswald</span>

Eleazer Oswald was born at Falmouth, Cornwall, in England, but moved to British America as a young man. He became apprenticed to a printer, John Holt of Williamsburg, Virginia, and married the man's daughter, Elizabeth Holt. In the American Revolutionary War he immediately threw in his lot with the American colonists. He participated in Benedict Arnold's expedition to Quebec in 1775 and was captured. After a prisoner exchange, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel of artillery in January 1777. He performed notable service during the Danbury Raid in Connecticut during April 1777. At the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778 he distinguished himself while playing a major role in the engagement.

Fred G. Moritt was an American lawyer, singer, composer, lyricist and politician from New York.

Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court contesting the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Shortell, Christopher. Rights, Remedies, and the Impact of the Sovereign State. Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 2008. p. 35.
  2. Paltsits, Victor Hugo. John Holt, Printer and Postmaster: Some Facts and Documents Related to His Career. New York: New York Public Library, 1920. p. 6-7.
  3. 1 2 Shortell, Christopher. Rights, Remedies, and the Impact of the Sovereign State. Albany, NY: University of New York Press, 2008. p. 36.
  4. Oswald v. New York, 2 U.S. (2 Dall. ) 401 (1792).