Georgia v. Brailsford (1793)
Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 415 (1793), was a United States Supreme Court case continuing the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1792). Here, the court held that "upon a motion to dissolve that injunction, this court held that, if the state of Georgia had the title in the debt, (upon which no opinion was then expressed,) she had an adequate remedy at law by action upon the bond; but, in order that the money might be kept for the party to whom it belonged, ordered the injunction to be continued till the next term, and, if Georgia should not then have instituted her action at common law, to be dissolved."[1][2] [3][4]
| Georgia v. Brailsford | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided February 7, 1792 | |
| Full case name | State of Georgia v. Brailsford |
| Citations | 2 U.S. 415 (more) 2 Dall. 415 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Jay, joined by Wilson, Cushing, Rutledge |
| Dissent | Iredell |
| Dissent | Blair |
See also
References
- The Supreme Court Reporter by Robert Desty, United States. Supreme Court, West Publishing Company Published by West Pub. Co., 1888 Item notes: v. 8, pg. 1376
- The Constitution of the United States: With Notes of the Decisions of the Supreme Court Thereon, from the Organization of the Court Till October, 1900 By Edwin Eustace Bryant, United States Published by The Democrat Printing Company, 1901, pg. 230
- James R. Perry, The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Volume 6, "West v. Barnes," p. 73.
- 2 U.S. 402 (1793)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.