Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-07-17
IFs9,n e it4.issag Day Ad.er.i.s, J,ly l.

Anthouy y. Holman and others. any '"'4'
Inc following Is the substance case and of the chan
o'mof 1pinon on granting the Injunction Monday last
ihS OH HE'D by the plaintiffs was an Injunction Till ,o
stop the running of steam boat called the ;,1
states on the waters OF the IIusons river and the hin @
~ statutes OF the Legislature this state of 7q8
1903 1897, ieoa 1911 and 1890 by virtue of which the p
@ claimed TO be entitled the right and prrieae
lo e ine therein limited, Of employing and usinr siS
Propelled by FIRE or stea upon the navigabe waters Of
ms state The bill charged that plaintiffs and those from
whom they derived title had been the nninternpt,L @
anu enjoyment Of this exclusive privilege under h p,oec
non oi The laws for the last years and upward and lad
a out IN the purchase of such right and in steam boats the
$500 uouars That the defendants had lately com
onsd to build steam boat invade destroy the rgi
ond mn ana were actually engaged in that spass
oJ c INC Hudson river and carTying passengers 10
ana from New York and Albany 60 w
!he CHANCELLOR due of the motion for an IN
Junction was given 10 the defendants - -
m eiedHnts regularly entered their appearance to the
80, go, nv, ,1ie:a.Sy presented petition remove the
Y IN mo ,e circuit court Of the u S.to in New
In support of their petition four Of the defendants stated
uy anuV 'hai they were citizens New Jersey and sole
cause INTO the circuit of United States and b OF
leyu te requisite security 1t further stated ,y enc
states had been enrolled and cuasne licence obtained
Tor her rom the custom house A5oy in New Jer
piny, and was intended carry OH freight forei,,
aze ON her trips between Albany Perth A,bov nd al
carry passengers and that the boat regularly clear
ca our each trip from Perth Arb0y and dy Turtd be-
sen TO The surveyor Of the port of Albany
in opposition TO the petition for removal of the
Of me plaintiffs OF member of the company stated by
e ne was secretary, and kept the books the COM
au tnat all transfers of shares were made IN
on ne oook and that three of the stockholders whom he
of New jersey and another citizen of PennsvIyano @
a ney were all residents in those states and the fact OF
esiuehce IA those states respectively several wears
past was proved by the affidavit OF another person
ne case was argued behalf the plaintiffs nv Nyesrs
Soiueh and Emmett, aud behalf OF the defendants bv
Mrssrs. woodward, W. \. Duer. II. b. Ogden and Wells
ne chancellor Observed that the petition Ia rcn,oye M
cause to the circuit OF u S. could not be santcd
because me circuit court had conzance of the II
the petition was to be granted cause would ndouei
DC dismissed from the circuit when met at New YORK
and IN the time the defendants would no
@ 70 reap nndsurbedly the profits their legal invasion of
and by the aay II aid Of IT, that some of de S isg o
ne association of the plaintiffs citizens OF other states
@ one Of Them citizen Of New Jersey. Now il has be
repeatedly decided by the supreme court of the n cr
Orahch A7-sight Cranch ST. Gil Wheaton, OF, that the
49, eoL PoLdllon 70 sue III the federal de
pend upon the character and citizenship of its several mem
ana iat IN order TO give the federal jurisdiction
49, " must appear airmativcIy and clearlyhat all the
ins IN tire given entitled to sue or he siIed in
r @ courts Each person concerned in the joint inter-
% p competent 10 sue or be sued in those To
apply the doctrine to this it will he perceived M onrc
pan'i's cannot sue the defendants in The federal
% some OF the plaintiffs and some defend
AUS VINO are parties to the suit and have no; are
respectively citizens Of this state, citizens Of the s nc
state cannot each other in the federal courts So
arc, mat one Of the plaintiffs is citizen New, Jer
anu ne cannot sue the defendants who are citizens of
New jersey in the federal courts The nrtes 90 The ;
DE against each other wholly citizens Of different states
we slerai courts have no jurisdiction The federal courts
y 30 themselves and have uniformly discainIe any iurj
uo where the case plainly and by positive aver
a ne no possible doubt in this case and upon te facts add
mlted that this be- decided orignav i,
go IN the way proposed and, though the cbaDcelor r
greu the necessity ofexcrcisng the Jurisdiction which Is
upon MIN IN This case, yet he has alternative
nc ease can eventually he reviewed in the spreme co az
Und states but it must 20 there in the ordinary chan
lels oy means of appeal from the decision of This court
,OuTf. - ' " 'ii'iS " tndl |
Inc motion TO remove the is consequently denied
nc next question supOnt the motion for an Injunction foni
ii upon the bill - 'VU"''i- |
tns point there is still less room FOR hesitation Tho
nis hc IN possession OF AN exclusive privilege grnnf
cVnfnedb by SIX different legislatures and fstlcI fiot
p"hg IRON such an authority, be conclusive and bind
W upon an otr courts and all citizens il would br lille
AN ABOUT rights and property the security of n rovern
nel The validity and cOnstitutionaty Of these Law
49, drought INTO discussion in the court Of errors In W1rr
Us IN he cause OF Livingston Van Ingen. aud the CONT
UNANIMOUSLY declared these laws be valid and constit
nc defendants have, however, rot their boat enro
!" an hcenset under the law Of the United gfafes as
oasg 'cssel and so had the defendant in tJc cameo If
ysucn vs. ubsOni and these parties were citizens Of Ne,
ery anu yet was decided BY the court Of errors viii
~ sc unaniny, IN Janufy 1890 that the rrcun,sf,n
NC enrolment and liccnce made alteration in the cse and
sc tbe steam boat no additional right disturb The main
lHs ~ thc enjoyment Of their exclusive pryiepc under The
ssa statutes OF this siae. Whenever the supreme ro,
e u d snail decide that the privilege granted rner our
'cs saGahst the constitution of the union viii e tr
ABANDON the statutes, and give up The protection 81 te
ou navigation under That sanction. But no such ,ecson
~ DeeA maue or IS anticipated and the present c car
,t nu excite surprise for the tcmery and infaiuan ,it
.hich TIC laws are attempted 10 be ipfnO,d
ms court has no alternative left ii IS hound 10 declare and
edorce the law as i stands and the injunction must be
"a a HHH H