North Carolina v. Temple

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 134 U.S. 22, 33 L. Ed. 849, 10 S. Ct. 509, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1944, SCDB 1889-146

Decision Date: 3/3/1890

Docket Number: No. 392

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22, 33 L. Ed. 849, 10 S. Ct. 509, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1944, SCDB 1889-146 (1890)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1890

NORTH CAROLINA v. TEMPLE.

Attorneys

■ ■ Mr. B. H. Battle and Mr. John W. Graham for appellants. Mr: T. F. JDmidson, Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, and Mr. Thomas Ruffin were with them on the brief.
Mr. S. F. Phitlvps for appellee. It is not practicable to give more than the points of Mr. Phillips’s argument, with the citations.
Mr. Edward L. Andrews also argued for appellee.

majority Me. Justige Beadley,

After stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

We think it perfectly clear that the suit against the auditor in this case was virtually a suit against the State of North Carolina. In this regard it comes within the principle of the cases of Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 446; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52; and In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. We do not think it necessary to consider that question anew. ■

The other point, the suability of the State, is settled by the decision just rendered in Hans v. The State of Louisiana, ante, 1.

To the question on which the judges of the Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, our answer is in the negative, namely, that the suit could not be maintained' in the Circuit Court against the State of North Carolina by the plaintiff, a citizen thereof.

The decree of the Circuit Court is

Reversed and the cause rema/nded with instructions to dis- " miss 'the Mil of corrvplaAnt.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.