New York v. Miln

Fri, 27 Jan 1837 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Port of New York New York, NY

United States

40° 38' 56.8572" N, 74° 3' 45.4104" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Petitioner

New York

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miln

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taney Court (1836-1837)

Decided By

Taney Court (1836-1837)

Opinion

36 U.S. 102 (1837)

Argued

Friday, January 27, 1837

Decided

Thursday, February 16, 1837

Facts of the Case

A state law required all vessels docking in New York City to provide a list of passengers and to post security against the passengers from becoming public charges. Miln, the master of the ship "Emily," refused to comply with the law. The city sought to collect a penalty for Miln's failure to file the report.

Question

Does the New York law violate the Commerce Clause which vests all power over interstate and foreign commerce in Congress?

Conclusion

The Court upheld the state law. The justices ducked the Commerce Clause issue and invoked what was to become the state "police power" -- the right of a sovereign to take all necessary steps to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. According to Barbour, who wrote the majority opinion, a state is as competent "to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possible convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence, which may arise from unsound and infectious articles imported." The Court reversed Miln in 1941. (See Edwards v. California)

Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky

Sat, 28 Jan 1837 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Petitioner

Briscoe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bank of Kentucky

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Taney Court (1836-1837)

Decided By

Taney Court (1836-1837)

Opinion

36 U.S. 257 (1837)

Argued

Saturday, January 28, 1837

Decided

Saturday, February 11, 1837

Facts of the Case

Kentucky authorized a state owned and operated bank to issue bank notes that circulated as currency. The bank gave Briscoe the notes in exchange for a promissory note. Briscoe failed to repay, so the bank sued him. Briscoe claimed that the bank (and thus Kentucky) had violated the Constitution.

Question

By issuing notes and currency, did the bank violate the constitutional prohibition in Article I Section 10 that "[n]o State shall...emit Bills of Credit"?

Conclusion

The Court rejected Briscoe's argument. The clause prohibiting bills of credit applied to notes issued indirectly through a corporation. But the bank had issued the notes on its own credit, not on the credit of the state.

Cases - 1837 term

New York v. Miln

Location

Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky