The State of Rhode Island, on leave granted at January Term,
1838, to amend a bill previously filed by the state against the
State of Massachusetts, amended the bill at this term by inserting
in it references to papers filed at the term of 1838. The State of
Massachusetts was allowed until the term of 1840 to answer.
The rules which govern courts of equity as to the allowance of
time for filing an answer and other proceedings in suits between
individuals will not be applied by the Supreme Court to
controversies between states of the Union. The parties in such
cases must, in the nature of things, be incapable of acting with
the promptness of an individual.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.:
A motion was made by the complainant on Saturday last for an
order on the defendant to answer the amended bill of the
complainant on or 26 January. In deciding upon this motion, it is
necessary to refer to the orders of the Court heretofore passed in
this case, and to see what steps have been taken under them.
At the last term, leave was given to Rhode Island to withdraw
the general replication filed in the case and to amend the bill,
the amendment to be made on or before the first Monday of
August
Page 38 U. S. 24
last. At the same term, upon the motion of the counsel for
Massachusetts, leave was granted to withdraw the plea which the
defendant had filed and also to strike out the appearance of
Massachusetts to the suit.
Nothing has since been done by the defendant under this leave,
for reasons which have been stated at the bar. And as the
appearance of Massachusetts has not yet been withdrawn, and as
Rhode Island has a right to the usual orders to enable that state
to proceed in the suit, the Court, in passing them, must look to
the condition of the case as it appears on the record and consider
Massachusetts as still in court and as appearing in the case.
When the motion was made at the last term to amend the bill, two
documents which Rhode Island desired to introduce into the cause
were filed with the motion, but the leave to amend was general, and
not confined to the papers then filed. Nothing appears to have been
done by the complainant until the second day of the present term,
when the bill was amended by inserting in it the proper allegations
in relation to the two papers above mentioned and adding also
certain interrogatories in relation to sundry matters charged in
the bill, which the complainant prays that the defendant may be
required to answer. The amendment, therefore, was not made until
the second day of the present term. The defendant could not have
answered until it was made, and consequently is not in default for
not answering. The question now is what time ought to be given?
From the character of the parties and the nature of the
controversy, we cannot, without committing great injustice, apply
to this case the rules as to time which govern courts of equity in
suits between individuals. In the last mentioned cases, the
material allegations in the bill are comparatively few in number,
and rest in the personal knowledge of the individual who is to put
in his answer. But a case like this, and one too of so many years
standing, the parties, in the nature of things, must be incapable
of acting with the promptness of an individual. Agents must be
employed, and much time may be required to search for historical
documents and to arrange and collate them for the purpose of
presenting to the court the true grounds of the defense. It is
impossible for the Court to foresee what additional inquiries and
explanations may be found necessary in consequence of the new
allegations and documents introduced into the bill, and the new
interrogatories as to the verity of various papers stated in the
bill which the defendant is now called upon to answer. And as the
Court has received the amendment of the complainant at the present
term upon the leave granted at the last term, as hereinbefore
mentioned, we think that the same time should be given to the
defendant to answer. The Court will therefore pass the following
order.
The bill heretofore filed by Rhode Island in this case having
been amended on the second day of the present term, it is ordered
by
Page 38 U. S. 25
the Court that Massachusetts be allowed until the first Monday
in August next to elect whether that state will withdraw its
appearance pursuant to the leave granted at January term, 1838, and
if the appearance of Massachusetts be withdrawn within the time
above mentioned, that Rhode Island be thereupon at liberty to
proceed
ex parte.
And if the appearance of Massachusetts shall not be withdrawn
within the time above mentioned, it is then ordered that the said
state answer the amended bill of the complainant on or before the
second day of January term, 1840.
The motion made by the complainant on Saturday, the 19th of the
present month, is
Overruled.
January 26, 1839.
MR. JUSTICE BALDWIN did not consider the State of Massachusetts
before the Court; after what had passed at the last term, not
considering Massachusetts before the Court, he had taken no part in
the order now made by the Court.