Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1873-1877, 1877-03-23

s"'se LORENZO oswyes delivered ths
ioiiosing Oral opinion upon the question
Of admitting in evidences the judssms en-
roll IN The Gee 81 Assos b. Treadve,
". James =. Slinesslasd
With reference 70 The sdmissibij;tv n,
| this record the oely Qssssis,. In am,
mind Is whether the Judgment In ths
ease can under any cjscamstasce. -
binding upon the State OF Nevada n
my Judgment. u not binding upon III,
state Of Nevada. il can have NJ
relevancy TO tho issues In this case.
II is well settled principle that IN.
State cs0nOt BE- sued without ite eru,sss
consent given By Law Upon that nnss.
ton tbcrs IL no conflict Ia the ausho,,.
tics. But the exact point which arises IN
this case has never been de,crminsd ~
any court that sm aware OF. Thai i
70 say, II has never bssn decided that II
40 ofiicer OF the Government 10 tres.
pssssr and he 10 sued for the srespee,
and the iudgsmsnt enforced against him.
although the State nay BE- affected by
ssch Judgment thAt IL IL concluded by
tbs sdludication. There 10 no dscision
- Tar ~ | an awsYs, or 10 which 4 !,
attention has bees called, detsrminino
tho effect Of that judgment a. aoain :,
the State. WHISTLER IL sdjudRss or con.
cinsively determines liz rights.
II the State can be bound bv the
Judgment against Sliagerland. Il mus,
necessarily have besn substantially and
10 fact, though not In form. ! nastv ~
tho action. And yet il cannot 81 susd
Without ia express assont given by Law.
And whers the State cannot BE- sued,
tns decisions arc 10 the eject that the
fact Of ito having been sued and the
states attorney having in fast appeared,
docs no. change the phase OF the ones.
ton. At all. II has been decided n 4,
least two cssea ~ the Supscns Oour. Of
the unitcs States that the appearance ~
the United States attorney vi,hon,
authority docs not give jurisdiction over
the United States. In the case OF the
United States W. McLemofe a How.
ard 2s6) an action was broueht In
relation to certain moneys and ..the
District Attorney Of tho United Sta,es
answescd tbs bill and the matter Of psy.
fnenta was referred to = IN sstsv who "a.
ported . balance against the Trnitea
States, after paying the judgment. On
tils report. the District Judge holding
!he Circuit Court deereed : perpetual
Injunction, and that the United S,.,es
should pay the costs. The Supreme
Court hold that there was no iurtsdic.
ton Of this eAss IN The Circsit Court A.
the Government IL not liable to be- sued
except with its own consent, given bv
law Nor car . decree o. judemsn, be
entered agAinst tho government In,
costs.
30 that Notwithstanding tho fact tina,
Tho attorney OF the United States an.
pesred without making the objection IN
the court below and tho case went 10
Judgment. the Judgment wss held 70 bs
voidfor wsnt Of jnrisiicion Tha, Jecision
affirmed IN the case OF Hill ct al. Va.
The United States o. 81. 20 Howard $50. !
In that case hill WAS filed on the equity
side OF the court by Hill and the Other
complainants against the United States.
70 esjoin : judgment obtained against
the cotnnplAtnanss BY the United Slstes
The United States Attorney At 6rst
answered In extspso 10 the merits thus
appearing Asd eiviug the court oil IA.
jurisdiction that could be given
Oya voluntary appearance. A motion
WAS Afterwards made by the United
btatos Attorney 10 dissolve tke iuiunc.
ton and dianiss the bill. "a 20 the Uni.
tod States, for want Of jurisdiction an In
than. In tho decision Of this case tbs
Supreme Court ssys:
Ihe question hero propoupded With
out any nscessity for rscurrsscs 10 ps,.
nculAf examples. would seem to mee, i,s
solution In the regular and bcs, -set,led
principles OF public Law. No maxim il
lhouRhi to DO better established or more
accented TO. than thst which
osdsins that . sovereign, cannot er dsiicio
be Aiaeuabls to lis own crsatures. or
agents employed under iss own authority
lot the fullhlirnent merely Of its own IL.
gitimsts ends. A departure from this
masim can DO sustained only upon the
ground OF pesmission on the part OF the |
sovereign. OF the government eYprss.l,
declared. and an attempt 10 overrule q,
to impair u on a. foundation indspsndsnt.
" OF such Permission must involve an
Inconsistency and confusion. both In
theory and practice. subvsrsivs u rexu. |
lstsi order or power.
without dilatiDg upon The psoprisly OF
necessity OF the principle here stated, or
..eehingio multiply examples Of ito en-.
!orcemcns. Ne content ourselves With 70. |
lernng to single aud recent cass In thi. |
Court. which appears 10 cover the one
nov before W IN eli lie fcstusss, W.
Allude TO tbs case II thu United StstAsv
McLsmore, In Z Howard. 2ss, whore II l.
broadly laid down - The Leo, thai Or.
'sis Court cannot entertain . bill ON the
equity side 81 the Conn, praying ths,
ne United States may hs psrpstuslly 90.
lcsned from proceeding upon judeinsn,
'osained by them. - The Oovssn,nsut IA
Dot liable 70 b. susd. sscsps bg ils. evs
'onsen' given BY lav."
unlsss consent IL givsu ~ ~ leo N
,eis against the. State, OF 0oveesue.c
- Ceuu under lhoss decisions has nc
sssedtcsios. and We iaes shso 0he oeaos.
Attorney sppsars volunsssily u ooulsss
I. does not give the Coat jusisdle1Iee.
'ssss !! vss before without jusieilcsjou'
The Snpsems Court 10 shoss cosee de-.
'esses the jndgossts void ios vent Of Ia.
iedtesioa. Observation-Disclosures tie lese -,
- attorney Of the government sssumed
Q appsas ios u Il y hsld byos ~ sueAosi.
We shss The oflcss nay b med IL kis
capacity. The ssss q Osbosp
9. We United bssses Bank 10 wheeler
.osis - good % iiiussrssson % su,
ehss spon ,hts point. There IL Trec.
uses vss sucd an6 90 luiuucstou sppli.