United States v. Simms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States v. Simms

Full case name:

Citations:	5 U.S. 252
Prior history:	Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for the County of Alexander

Subsequent history:	Affirmed

Holding

Private rights of action under Virginia law persist in the District of Columbia

Court membership

Case opinions

Per curiam.

Laws applied

The Acts of Congress of 27 February, 1801, and of 3 March, 1801, relative to the District of Columbia The Act of the Assembly of Virginia of 19 January, 1798 regarding gambling

United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 252 (1803) is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was one of a series of cases dealing with the applicability of previous laws in the newly created District of Columbia

1 Background of the case
2 The decision
3 See also
4 Notes and references
5 External links

[edit] Background of the case

Prior to the creation of the District of Columbia in 1801, Virginia created a private right of action to enforce most of its criminal statutes. It was illegal in Virginia to operate a billiards parlor, a faro table, or any of a number of other gambling operations from one's house. The law provided that the penalty would be a fine of 150 pounds payable to any party that would file suit against the operator.^[1]

When the District of Columbia was formed the acts of Congress that created the district, also created a contradictory legal situation. They held that within the portion of the District of Columbia that had previously been Virginia territory the laws of Virginia would continue to apply. However, it also held that all suits for breech of the peace or other laws within the district must be prosecuted in the name of the United States and that fines would be payable to the United States.^[1] This led to a contradiction because the Virginia law, which was supposedly still in force, had no such requirement.

[edit] The decision

The Court held that the object of Congress to have been not to change in any respect the existing laws further than the new situation of the District rendered indispensably necessary. Thus qui tam remedies enacted before the creation of the District should persist.^[1]