Principality of Monacov.State of Mississippi

The Principality of Monaco asked leave to bring suit in the Supreme Court against the State of Mississippi upon bonds issued by the State and alleged to be the absolute property of the Principality.¹ The proposed declaration set forth four causes of action. Two counts were upon Mississippi Planters’ Bank Bonds dated March 1, 1833, the first upon eight bonds of $1,000 each due March 1, 1861 and the second upon two bonds of $1,000 each due March 1, 1866, all with interest at six percent per annum.² The remaining two counts were upon Mississippi Union Bank Bonds, the third on twenty bonds of $2,000 each dated June 7, 1838 due February 5, 1850 and the fourth on twenty-five bonds of $2,000 each dated June 6, 1838 due February 5, 1858, all with interest at five percent per annum.³

The bonds were transferred and delivered to the Principality at its legation in Paris, France, on or about September 27, 1933, as an absolute gift.⁴ Accompanying the declaration and made a part of it was a letter of the donors dated September 26, 1933, stating that the bonds had been handed down from their respective families who purchased them at the time of their issue by the State of Mississippi, that the State had long since defaulted on the principal and interest, and that the donors had been advised that such a suit could only be maintained by a foreign government or one of the United States, leading them to make an unconditional gift of the bonds to the Principality.⁵

The State of Mississippi filed a return to the rule to show cause why leave should not be granted and raised multiple objections.⁶ It contended that the Principality was not a foreign State within the meaning of the Constitution, that Mississippi had not consented to be sued, that the proposed litigation attempted to evade the Eleventh Amendment, that the declaration did not state a justiciable controversy, and that any right of action had long since been defeated by statutes of limitations, laches, and constitutional amendments adopted in 1876 and 1890 that barred the State from assuming or paying the Planters’ Bank Bonds or Union Bank Bonds.⁷

Mississippi detailed the history of its laws regarding suits on the bonds, noting a statutory right to sue under the Act of February 15, 1833, the abolition of the Superior Court of Chancery in 1856 that left no authorization to sue until the Code of 1871, the imposition of a seven-year limitation by the Act of April 19, 1873, the removal of the right to sue in the Code of 1880, and the constitutional provisions prohibiting payment of the bonds.⁸

The Principality replied that it is a foreign State recognized by the United States, that consent of Mississippi is not necessary, that the action is not a subterfuge to evade the Eleventh Amendment, that the cause of action is justiciable, and that no statute of limitations has run because holders never had an enforceable remedy under Mississippi law, with the Principality prepared to meet any laches defense by showing the history of efforts to procure payment.⁹ The Supreme Court heard oral argument as well as briefs on the objections.¹⁰