New York v. Connecticut, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. The case was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states. Background The Connecticut Gore region was a strip of land on New York's western border with Pennsylvania. Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over the land and granted it to Jeremiah Halsey and Andrew Ward in exchange for their construction of the state house in Hartford. (The building is now known as the Old State House.) After New York granted certain parcels within the Connecticut Gore to other individuals, the successors in title to Halsey and Ward filed an action for ejectment in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut. The defendants argued that they were residents of New York and that the land was actually in Steuben County, New York and so only state or federal courts in New York could exercise jurisdiction over the action. The plaintiffs claimed that the lands were actually in Connecticut. The Supreme Court denied a motion to remove the cases from the Circuit Court, and New York subsequently filed a bill in equity against Connecticut and the Connecticut plaintiffs for an injunction to stay the ejectment proceedings. As part of the bill, New York submitted an agreement between the states, dated November 28, 1683, that purported to recognize New York's rights to the land. Because the bill in equity was filed while the Connecticut General Assembly was out of session, the state never actually participated in the case. However, attorneys for the private land claimants argued that reasonable notice was not given for the injunction to be granted and that New York also lacked an interest in the proceedings to merit a stay. Decision The Court found that notice was sufficient since a shorter period of time may be reasonable when the application for injunction is made to a court, rather than a single judge. However, the Court denied the injunction and found that New York lacked standing. It had not been a party to the suits in the lower court and had no concrete interest in the decisions. Also,