World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Rutgers v. Waddington

Article Id: WHEBN0029778270
Reproduction Date:

Title: Rutgers v. Waddington  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Alexander Hamilton, Tariff of 1790, John Church Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, Tariff of 1792
Collection: 1784 in Case Law, 1784 in New York, Legal History of New York
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Rutgers v. Waddington

Rutgers v. Waddington was a case held in the New York City Mayor's Court in 1784. The case set a precedent for the concept of judicial review .[1]

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Rutgers v. Waddington 2
  • Ruling 3
  • References 4
  • External links 5

Background

Following the Revolutionary War, New York's legislature enacted a series of laws that stripped Tories of their property and privilege. One such law passed by the legislature in 1783 was the Trespass Act. It gave patriots the legal right to sue anyone who had occupied, damaged or destroyed homes they had left behind British lines during the war.[2] This law served the foundation for the case.

Rutgers v. Waddington

Rutgers v. Waddington was presented on June 29, 1784, before chief justice James Duane and four additional aldermen. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Rutgers, owned a large brewery and alehouse that she was forced to abandon during the British occupation of New York City. Under the then recently enacted Trespass Act, Rutgers demanded rent in the sum of £8,000[2] from Joshua Waddington, who had been running the brewery since it was abandoned.

The defense's case was litigated by Alexander Hamilton, who posited that the Trespass Act violated the 1783 peace treaty ratified earlier by Congress.

Ruling

Duane handed down a split verdict that entitled Rutgers to rent only from the time before the British occupation;[2] and the two parties agreed to the amount of £800.[2] Pecuniary issues aside, more importantly this case set a precedent for Congress's legal authority over the states. To this effect Chief Justice, James Duane wrote in his ruling that "no state in this union can alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or the treaty."[1]


References

  1. ^ a b NovelGuide.com, RUTGERS v. WADDINGTON (New York Mayor's Court, 1784)
  2. ^ a b c d

External links

  • Internet Archive - The case of Elizabeth Rutgers versus Joshua Waddington
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.