Beers Ex Rel. Platenius v. Arkansas
Supreme Court of the United States
These three cases depended upon the same principle, and are therefore classed together. The report in the first-named case will apply to them all. It was a case which was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, by a writ of error, issued under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. The cáse is stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Taney
This was an action of covenant, brought in the Circuit Court for Pulaski county, in the State of Arkansas, to recover the interest due on sundry bonds issued by the State, and which the State had failed to pay according to its contract.
The Constitution of the State provides, that “the General Assembly shall direct by law in what courts and- in what manner suit's may be commenced ágainst the State.” And in pursuance of this provision, a law was accordingly passed; and it is admitted that the present Suit was brought in the proper court, and in the manner authorized by that law.
The suit was…
2Cited by245 opinions
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hans v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Alden v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
240 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.