|
''New York v. Connecticut'', 4 U.S. 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states. ==Background of the case== The "Connecticut Gore" region was a strip of land on New York's western border with Pennsylvania. Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over the land, and granted it to Jeremiah Halsey and Andrew Ward in exchange for their construction of the state house in Hartford.〔This building is now known as the Old State House.〕 After the State of New York granted certain parcels within the Connecticut Gore to other individuals, the successors in title to Halsey and Ward filed an action for ejectment in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut. The defendants argued that they were residents of New York and that the land was actually in Steuben County, New York; only state or federal courts in New York could accordingly exercise jurisdiction over the action. The plaintiffs claimed that the lands were instead in Connecticut. The Supreme Court denied a motion to remove the cases from the Circuit Court,〔See ''Fowler v. Lindsey'', 3 U.S. (Dall.) 411 (1799).〕 and New York subsequently filed a bill in equity against Connecticut and the Connecticut plaintiffs for an injunction to stay the ejectment proceedings.〔The bill was filed by Josiah Ogden Hoffman, the Attorney General of New York.〕 As part of the bill, New York submitted an agreement between the states, dated November 28, 1683, that purported to recognize New York's rights to the land. Because the bill in equity was filed while the Connecticut General Assembly was out of session,〔According to the defendants' counsel, the General Assembly had not met since the Supreme Court denied the motion to remove in ''Fowler''.〕 the State never actually participated in the case. However, attorneys for the private land claimants argued that reasonable notice was not given for the injunction to be granted, and that regardless, New York lacked an interest in the proceedings to merit a stay. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「New York v. Connecticut」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|