*1 RE IN AYERS. M3
Syllabus. IN RE AYERS.
IN RE SCOTT.
IN RE McCABE.
ORIGINAL. Argued 14, 15, 1887. November Decided December 1887. !« n is well settled that, power pun- in this court while the exercise of the contempt by for of their general ishment orders courts of is subject by error, appeal, yet, to writ of not review when a court of undertakes, by process contempt, punish the United States its to a comply refusing man for to with an order which court had no make, authority original being jurisdiction, order void for want contempt punishing equally void; order for proceeding and if the will, contempt imprisonment, result for this court its writ corpus, prisoner. discharge the habeas party actual meaning a State is the defendant in a
Whether suit within the States, the 11th Amendment Constitution of the is to be presented by a consideration of the nature of the case determined record, not, every and reference to a the whole nominal parties the record. Osborn v. Bank the United Wheat. 857, explained limited. and purpose exemption the manifest of the constitutional to secure In order Amendment, interpreted by the 11th it should be not liter- guaranteed narrow'ly, largeness necessary ally but with breadth and too purpose; cover, accomplish only its and must be held not enable it to officers, name, against brought against a State but those suits State, named, representatives, though not agents, and where the is the oper- judgment party against relief and the is asked will real which ate. State, brought against agents a equity officers bill in If a personal subject-matter having no interest nominal defendants State, suit, representing defending and the relief per- may be ordered to do and prayed defendants a decree done, performance which, a of an constitute certain acts when will form State, specific against it is a the State for the alleged contract of the suit 11th of the performance contract within the terms Amendment defendant; Constitution, although may named as the State not be injunction and, agents, conversely, bill for an such officers and alleged enjoin it is acts which threaten to to restrain them.from name, use, do, pursuance statute in its of a and for its TERM,
Statement of the Case. part if done would constitute breach on the State of alleged complainants, contract it and between is in like manner a Amendment, meaning suit State within of that although party the State not be named aas defendant. principle impinge The court *2 justifies does intend the which suits who, against authority individual defendants under color of the of uncon- personal legislation, guilty trespasses stitutional state of wrongs; and against nor to forbid suits capacity officers their official either to arrest by injunction mandamus, or direct their official action where such law, purely suits are authorized and the act to be done or omitted is ministerial, performance plaintiff the or omission of which the has legal interest. equity A bill in against was filed aliens the Auditor of the.State of Vir- General, ginia, Attorney Attorneys and various Commonwealth for its counties, enjoin seeking bringing to them prosecuting and suits State, in the name and for the of use the under the act of its General Assembly May against tax-payers reported delinquent, to be payment but had sought who tendered of the taxes to be recovered in suits, coupons tax-receivable cut from bonds of the State. An in- junction having 'granted prayer bill, according proceed- been of the ings Attorney were taken General of the State and two Com- Attorneys contempt disobeying monwealth for the orders of the court respect, they in this and were fined and were committed until the fine paid they Held, should purged contempt. and should be of the (cid:127) Virginia, suit a suit State of meaning within the the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the United and was of the States; within courts of the United that the injunction granted void; the Circuit null Court was that the im- prisonment contempt of the alleged officers of the for an State of the authority illegal; prisoners, of the Circuit Court was and that being corpus, before this court on a discharged. writ habeas should be Virginia concerning The persons act of 1877 suits to collect taxes from who payment tender, provision had tendered contains no toas it, proof proof genuineness coupon, or the or the of the of the ' legal rights party violates or contract sued. coupons, Virginia If the payment taxes, holder of receivable in of state sells them, purchaser agreeing with the shall be received so State,' the refusal of the State receive injury them constitutes no him for suable; which he could sue the even if. were and can- preventive not be made the foundation for equity relief in against officers of the State. On the 11th October, 1887, these each moved petitioners his counsel for leave to through file a for writ of petition habeas On the 12th October eorjms. leave was granted, the writs were ordered to be made returnable on Monday, AYERS,
IN RE Case.
Statement the return return made, On been October. day, havifig ITtli directed the court prisoners placed custody court. The same a motion was the marshal made day them on bail and to fix a release for hear- day argued, On the 18th October the court ordered the prisoners ing. own
he on their each released sum recognizances, the cause for 14th $1000, argument assigned day next November. case for decision, court, stated argument was as follows:
A writ of habeas directed to the Marshal of the corpus, States Eastern District of Virginia, having heretofore been issued this court on the bj application A. Rufus General of the Ayers, Attorney Virginia, the marshal has made return thereto that the petitioner, *3 he was in his and whose detained body produces, custody him virtue of an order, and decree, commitment judgment, of of the for the Circuit Court United States the Eastern of a certified of District which is attached as copy Virginia, of and return; further returned that the part petitioner had not and refuses to the fine him paid, pay, imposed upon order of order. The dated at commitment, said Richmond, follows: October is as 8, 1887,
“ On Attachment Contempt. for pf “In the Circuit the United for Court States the Eastern District of Virginia. Ayers. Be A. Rufus
“ on matter came to be This heard rule day A. heretofore'issued Rufus General Ayers, Attorney State of to show cause he of the should not be Virginia, why attached contempt order disobeying restraining in the suit of et al. al. heretofore ei Cooper Marye granted June, 6th of and his thereto. 1887, on answer day “ whereof court is of consideration and doth On opinion Rufus A. of order the said and Ayers adjudge guilty TERM, 1887. oí the Case.
Statement and that of said he do order, in his disobedience contempt v. The of The Commonwealth Balti- dismiss the suit forthwith him in instituted Ohio Railroad & Company, more that for and his said Richmond, of Court City Circuit stand and committed $500, be fined sum he contempt until same be of the marshal of this court in the custody his said himself of he contempt by dismissing and purge paid mentioned.” last herein suit decrees of orders,
A proceedings, transcript for the Eastern District of of the United States Circuit Court referred al., suit of et al. et Marye in the Cooper Virginia is also set out commitment, order of produced, of the record this matter. From that in full as a part others, James P. 6, 1887, that on June Cooper appears behalf and for all' others situated, their own similarly suing of Great filed their bill com- aliens, Britain, subjects being Court the United States for the Circuit plaint Morton Auditor District Eastern Virginia against Marye, Rufus A. Virginia, Ayers, Attorney thereof, counties, and the' Treasurers cities, General and the of coun- towns Commonwealth Virginia, Attorneys and towns in said cities, State, whose names ties, they prayed be allowed to insert the bill as defendants when they might discovered. it is an act that,
In that bill of the General alleged March 30, and another 1871, Assembly Virginia, approved the State March had approved Virginia provided number of for the issue of bonds interest large bearing contracted which she should be received thereby coupons, debts, all demands due to of which taxes, her, payment millions of had numbers, dollars, large amounting many *4 been in fact that said issued; issued under both of coupons, said are acts, bearer, and, to both as .a contract to payable pay and as a that contract shall be received they pay- interest ment of are in the hands taxes, free instruments, negotiable Iona for value or burden any purchaser any equity fide that there are .and whatever; overdue outstanding hands of the at four millions of dollars more than large public EE
IN AYERS. Statement the Case. of a subse- that, overdue coupons; pursuance plan
of these the' marketable to conceived destroy adopted quently the State of these General coupons, Assembly value the 15th of an dated 14, the section act February by Yirginia, all the officers of the State to and redeem forbade 1882, pay the tenor of the contract contained to same the according dated the 26, 1882, an act collectors and, therein, January to the same in forbidden receive were payment of taxes to these statutes were them; that, nevertheless, taxes due of the United States to be thé Court Supreme declared by void; that thereafter the complainants, unconstitutional belief caused of said decision thereby faith unable State would be the said utterly by any that legislative the value of as a for to> said tender coupons enactment impair in. a of said had taxes, large quantity coupons bought market of London and elsewhere, city money open hundred thousand dollars more than one nomi- to amounting than thousand that dollars; a cost of more thirty at nally, for said was made purpose selling coupons purchase to be used as them tenders Yirginia, to tax-payeiv due that taxes said believing for complainants to sell to such be able said at con- coupons tax-payers would on the for them; advance of which siderable price paid many have sold to said that tax-payers; complainants enacted another statute, dated Virginia Assembly General of which out is set exhibit copy May “the treasurer each whereby, alleged, county, bill, in the State ordered furnish town Com- city, list of all thereof a who have attorney persons monwealth’s said State’s of their taxes, coupons payment tendered are Commonwealth’s ordered to institute attorneys said in the name of said summary proceedings suits by all such recover them persons judgment against said of' taxes' so due them; amount previously to submit ato said thereby required tax-payers judg- them default court and appear plead ment against of said and then a tender coupons, prove affirmatively tendered are the State’s and not them coupons *5 TERM,
Statement of the Case. counterfeit the burden of spurious coupons, proving same and the placed being upon tax-payer coupon being taken to and counterfeit.” bejprima spurious facie “ the bill it is further that said act is alleged repugnant to section ten of article one the Constitution of the United the reason taken in connection said that, with act before mentioned of 1882, it first commands January 26, State’s officers to refuse to receive those Avhichare coupons her orvn as Avellas those Avhichare .undoubtedly spurious (and orators your that there are none then com- charge such), mands her officers to said suits those Avhohave bring tendered said of said as Avellas coupons those Avhohave tendered that it spurious coupons; imposes upon the defendants costs and fees, all heavy taxes due although them were said and it tender, makes the paid to judgment be recovered said suit a lien all the perpetual upon property of said for said and for said taxes, costs tax-payer and fees thus also, cloud the title of-said fixing perpetual tax- upon to his payer property.” “ It is further in the bill, that, alleged another act of General of said Assembly State, approved January 26, 1886, it that is a trial of provided the issue to be upon made up under said act of defendant May shall produce 12, the bond from Avhichthe so tendered him coupon Avas cut, ” that it Avascut from prove bond; said that, as very feAvof said bonds are OAvned by persons residing Virginia, would be unable to tax-payers utterly said produce bonds, said act. required by
It is further therein, “that, alleged another act of said General it Assembly,- approved; that provided said tender tax-payer shall undertaking prcwe not be allowed introduce evidence to expert prove genuineness of said and all that have coupons, been issued under either said acts are as said acts engraved only, be, provided they and are not it signed Wherefore, manually.” alleged, “ said who cannot tax-payers said bonds will produce be utterly unable their prove to be said genuine trial, thus them into a laAvsuitin forcing her own courts, AYERS.
IN RE
Statement the Case. beforehand taken effectual she has precautions it cer- make can win, they legal make impossible said when cannot must lose produce they tainty *6 enacted to take said is a device and trick away that act bonds; for of their value tender said from and coupons deprive taxes.” of therein that Court further
It is Supreme alleged last- has decided said the State Virginia Appeals to said bonds be acts, named two produced, requiring valid not laws, the use of are testimony, forbidding expert to the United States. the Constitution repugnant in the as the bulk bill, that, It further is great alleged “ small if her officers are sums, Virginia pay tax-payers 12, 1887, them, to said act of enforce May allowed orators’ to be derived from your coupons purchasing profit them do will so, and, indeed, small to induce will too be all, at them to use said for coupons except be impossible ” can said bonds; in which limited cases produce they very “ lose the orators will which and that profit they your would make when they had a expect they purchased right them to but will unable sell said they coupons, Virginians at thus their entire any price, property tax-payers and aver same will orators your destroyed; charge event, that, unless are they any granted injunction will than for, hereinafter lose sum prayed they greater $2000.” “ treasurer of each It is further bill that the charged and town in about to to each said State is city, report county, who the name of Commonwealth’s every attorney tax-payer has tendered and each Commonwealth’s attorney coupons, act at once to institute the suits said provided going from 12, 1887, May bought against persons holding coupons well orators, others; all your as. case
informed and believe and so that, every charge, the Auditor which tenders of have been made to coupons have been who Morton made Marye, (and many the said and lion. E. A. who is Auditor, Ayers, him,) General to institute are about the suits thereof, Attorney vol. cxxm —29 ' TERM,
Statement oí the Case. which said act for their provides all instituting, whereby orators have sold to coupons your Virginia tax-payers will be condemned as are all spurious, although they genuine issued State and all coupons her tax- Yirginia, will be intimidated and payers deterred from buying orators and all your others in the future more of said coupons.” “ It is further in an amended bill that acts charged General Assembly which are Yirginia, repug- nant to section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, commanded the treasurer of each county levy and sell the of each property who has tendered tax-payer of his taxes; and said payment acts also command said treasurers to return the real property tax-payers where no delinquent can be found personal to be property seized and sold; orators your therefore, charge, *7 unless said officers are from said enjoined suits bringing hereinbefore described the treasurer of each will county pro- ceed to execute said other acts unconstitutional by levying on such or tax-payer’s property, by same returning where no delinquent can be personal found, thus property a cloud creating title of such tax-payer’s prop- erty.”
The of the bill is that prayer “the said Morton Marye,/ Auditor of R. A. Yirginia, Ayers, General Attorney and thereof, the treasurer and Commonwealth’s of attorney each and town in the county, State of city, be Yirginia, may made hereto, defendant and that parties their they, agents and be restrained and attorneys, may enjoined bringing or suit for commencing any act of provided said by 12, May or from act other doing any said statute into put force and effect, that until the of a motion for hearing said order injunction be made restraining may effect,” for relief. general
The act of set out as 12, 1887, an exhibit to the May bill, as follows:
IN RE AYERS. of the
Statement Case. “ taxes and motion, An act for recovery, provide debts for Commonwealth,
certain due the payment papers purporting genuine tendered. Commonwealth have been (Approved May 1887.) Be
“1. it enacted the General Assembly Yirginia, or which that all now due taxes, licenses, taxes including hereafter to the Commonwealth, become due payment may of which to be or instrument coupon any paper purporting or detached of this State shall have been may from bond hereafter be tendered and not accepted payment in the otherwise be recovered Circuit Court having paid, may in which said taxes over the or county corporation jurisdiction if was made to the been the tender assessed, have or shall of taxes which accounts he auditor public payment taxes recov- law to the said receive, may authorized by Richmond. in the Circuit Court ered City “ without 2. The court have regard shall less claimed and amount be of the taxes amount though dollars. than twenty “ name shall be motion, proceeding and shall be instituted on ten Commonwealth, notice, days’ or cor- the Commonwealth attorney prosecuted if it be instituted or, in which the is, proceeding poration Circuit Court accounts, direction of auditor public Richmond. City “ 4. The notice be served any county corporation section of the first in the State the mode prescribed by of the code (edition one hundred sixty-four chapter *8 on or it be served hundred may seventy-three), eighteen in or of the defendant the county corporation any agent ‘ used, here and the as is, which the word agent,’ proceeding made tender include who shall have shall any person no or if there be known behalf of the defendaht, aforesaid or in the said of the defendant county corporation agent one time same some the' be served by publishing may the tax was where or the county city printed newspaper in such county there be no if printed or paper assessed, TERM, 1887. Statement of the Case: some, or then city in some or newspaper published county city, nearest to the where such tax was county assessed. city
“ 5. The motion be tried or heard the court or jury as motions in other civil cases. If the defendant relies on a tender of of the taxes coupons he shall payment claimed, the same and in and file plead specifically with the writing, averred therein' plea to have been coupons tendered, the clerk shall them. such carefully preserve filed Upon plea the burden of the tender and the proving genuineness shall be on the defendant. If the coupons tender and the gen- uineness of the shall be coupons established, for judgment the defendant on the of tender. In such case the plea clerk ‘ shall write the word and thereunder his name in proved,’ his official character, across the face of the and transmit coupons, with a them, certificate of the court that together have they been auditor of proven accounts, who public shall deliver the to the second auditor, there- receiving the check of for. auditor second which treasurer, check he shall into the to the credit of the pay treasury proper tax account. “ 6. If the defendant fails his defence and the taxes claimed are found to be due the filed State, any coupon him with a of tender shall plea (and returned be. spurious) him, there shall be for the Commonwealth judgment for amount of the taxes due and the aggregate interest thereon the time became due till the date of with interest on the said judgment, amount from aggregate the date until and costs. judgment payment, “ 7. No antecedent lien of the Commonwealth for the taxes is rendered shall be deemed to be judgment or otherwise merged judgment impaired by recovery but same, such lien shall continue in force notwithstand- ing judgment. “ shall be Every docketed, judgment prescribed by law other cases, the clerk shall issue execution thereon, directed to the sheriff of any county (or sergeant any city) who shall account for the collected thereon to the money auditor of accounts. public *9 RE
IN AYERS.
Statement the Case. “ be tendered the in 9. Should officer satisfaction coupons he said shall note the fact such tender execution, upon -the execution and return it to the cleric’s and there- office; the auditor of accounts direct action upon may public be This action shall insti- be brought upon judgment. and in mode for tuted herein actions prescribed prosecuted to recover similar actions taxes, for and may judgments instituted whenever tendered satisfaction coupons obtained the Commonwealth under the any judgment pro- visions of this act.
“ 10. The clerk of the court which such any judgment as soon as it is shall, behalf of the Commonwealth rendered, a certified abstract thereof to auditor rendered, transmit who record the same a book to be accounts, shall public for kept purpose. “ act after the county 11. Immediately passage law to authorized and all other officers treasurers, and city Commonwealth, for taxes due the or receive collect money the Common shall taxes, the license report including and and cities,- counties their wealth’s respective attorneys the names of all accounts, auditor per also public due the Common or liable therein for taxes assessed sons than for have tendered (otherwise who heretofore wealth for and taxes, such identification' verification) coupons taxes due, which taxes remain amount unpaid, become descrip what when account, they payable, and when tendered, as far as tion, coupons possible, when make like thereafter tendered; shall reports they soon made. As such tender soon ever any he such as the auditor of accounts shall receive reports public named therein the taxes credit the officer with shall proper for tendered. which were and the At- Commonwealth,
“12. for attorneys this act under when it is his General, represent torney duty Court case in the Circuit the Commonwealth any them, made such Richmond, being City report tender such are otherwise informed whenever any been shall institute and made, forthwith prosecute having as are hereinbefore proceedings required. TERM,
Statement of the Case. “13. instituted under of this case provisions is a Commonwealth, act, there judgment *10 fee of ten for dollars shall be allowed the the Com- attorney be, as the case or the monwealth, General, Attorney may which fee and of the for fees clerk and other officers services rendered in well as"such other costs as are aliowed- law other in which is a cases the Commonwealth party, shall be taxed in the costs defendant. The Com- against be liable or monwealth shall not for fees costs any any pro- act. under this ceedings
“14. If fail to officer any any duty perform .required him this act he shall be fined less than hundred one dollars nor than five more hundred dollars. “ 15. be in This act shall force from passage.”
On this bill the order made: was following “ Circuit the United for the Eastern Court of States District of Yirginia.
“James P. H. J. B. F. N. J.' Beeton, Burt, Cooper, M.W. F. P. and Leon,
Chinnery, Ohinnery,
W. G. Woolston, “ Morton B. Auditor, A. Gen- Marye, Ayers, Attorney eral, Counties, Treasurers Towns in" Cities and the Commonwealth of Coun- Yirginia, Attorneys State, Cities and said ties, Towns whose names leave to insert as complainants have dis- they may covered. the bill of the
“Upon reading ordered complainants, that Auditor, Morton B. A. General, Marye, Ayers, Attorney each and treasurer or town every city, county, each and Commonwealth Yirginia, attor- every for or town in said ney restrained county, city, from suit who has bringing commencing any any person tendered the State of tax-receivable Yirginia’s pay- ment of to said State, taxes due for and directed provided the act of Legislature 12, Yirginia, approved May and of bill, described which a is attached copy EE AYEES.
IN of the Case.
Statement their all ox said that each and agents parties, thereto, act to said statute put be restrained doing attorneys, court. order of the until the further and effect force into “ in this Arid that motion for injunction it is ordered .of the the Circuit Court at down be set hearing case first on the at Richmond, Monday States Virginia, of the General next; Attorney October provided move the defendants, or either. of State of Virginia, written after ten thereof days’ an earlier court for hearing of the the solicitor complainants; provided notice to order be served of this bill and of this further, copy within ten State Virginia General on the Attorney thereof.” after filing days 1887.”
“June bill, with a order, of this A together copy copy *11 of Vir- General the Attorney the Ayers, served on petitioner 7,1887. on June ginia, took the 1887, 8, place, viz. : following proceedings
On October “ at of a Circuit Court wit, at this now, day, And District of held at for the Eastern States Virginia, this 8th October, in said Richmond, district, day a.d. 1887. “ and Others J. P Cooper against In Equity. Auditor, and Others. &c.,
Morton Marye, “ on this to be heard motion cause came This day upon and was for preliminary injunction complainants it is consideration whereof counsel; adjudged, upon by argued for reasons stated made decreed, ordered, writing be issued the record, injunction prayed, part order of until the further and remain force bill “ Hugh L. Bond, court.
Circuit Judge. “ called the atten- counsel, by Thereupon complainants, R. defendant, the fact that the A. tion of the court to Ayers, of the State of General Virginia, guilty Attorney TERM, Statement Case. his disobedience of the contempt by order issued restraining in' this cause on 6th June, the said E. day A. called answer Ayers, filed in being behalf, court his answer which-answer open writing, words to wit: following
“ Answer of Defendant E. A. Ayers. “ The answer of E. A. General of the State Ayers, Attorney ato rule awarded him this honor- Yirginia, against able court. “ To the Honorable Circuit Court of the United Judge
States for the Eastern District of Yirginia: an order entered cause of “By James chancery P. et als. and others, Morton Cooper Marye against summoning him to show cause he should be fined and why imprisoned for heretofore awarded in said suit, disobeying injunction him and others the suits instituting restraining required an act of the General Assembly ‘An Yirgirpa, entitled act to for the motion of taxes and cer- provide recovery by tain debts due Commonwealth, of which payment to be of the Common- papers genuine coupons purporting tendered,’ wealth have been .12, insti- May approved a suit the Baltimore and Ohio tuting Eailroad Co., that he admits that he instituted respondent, answering, says the suit Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad Company recover it to taxes due after he Virginia had been served with the order in this injunction case; that he the said suit instituted because he was thereunto required act the General Assembly Virginia aforesaid, *12 and because he believed this no court had what- jurisdiction ever award the violated. injunction disclaims Eespondent to treat intention the court with and states disrespect, any that he has been actuated alone with the desire to have the law administered. properly “ E. A. Ayers, '
“ of Att’y-Gen’l Yirginia. “ m¿ Subscribed «worn to before this 8th of Octo. day ben “M. Clerk.” F. Pleasants,
IN RE AYERS. of Statement the Case.
And the order was made adjudging petitioner thereupon his disobedience of said order, requir- contempt by guilty him forthwith dismiss suit of The Commonwealth ing Baltimore and Ohio liailroad instituted The Company, him in the of Richmond, Circuit Court of him City fining his that he stand for committed $500 contempt, directing until the of the marshal the court same be the custody he himself of his said contempt by dismissing paid, purge mentioned. suit last
In the same in the commit- proceedings resulting of the John are as ment and Scott, imprisonment petitioner follows: that John 23, 1887, Scott,
On affidavit., August showing for the Commonwealth for Vir- County, attorney Fauquier with a had been served order copy restraining ginia, and that in violation thereof he had 1887, 6, of June brought for said suits certain against parties county, recovery due them to to be the State for taxes alleged Virginia for had tendered tax- 1886, previously year said actions under the act being brought receivable coupons, a rule 12, 1887, General was entered Assembly May said Scott show cause, 22, 1887, on September On that be attached for he should contempt. day why Scott answered the his action on the rule, the said justifying the order which he had was void for disobeyed ground in the it. Circuit Court make On want the com- leave pursuance given, September their bill, Scott, filed an amendment to making plainants for said for the Commonwealth County Fauquier, attorney that a had defendant, formal alleging judgment party in each of the the defendant suits rendered against been the said under a list of which, Scott the said act, brought amounts was set out. several with judgments, order was on October 8, 1887, following Thereupon, “ order, and decree therefore, doth court, adjudge, made: John Scott do court, his of this said that, pay contempt and dismiss which he has $10, the cases fine of brought violation of Court Fauquier County, Virginia, Circuit *13 TERM, i887. Argument for Petitioners. order made in heretofore and cause of restraining Cooper Others, Others v. and on the 6th Marye day June, 1887; and, further, that he enter satisfaction of the heretofore judgments obtained him the defendants in said and causes, that he stand committed to the the marshal of this custody court until this is and the order fine obeyed, hereby imposed him And it is further ordered that the said paid. John Scott do the costs of these pay proceedings.”
Similar had in were to J. B. proceedings respect McCabe, for Commonwealth’s Loudoun attorney County, Yirginia, entered, the other On 11, 1887, order was July petitioner. rule him to show cause he should granting why be attached for an of the court alleged contempt disobeying order made in the cause on 6,1887. June restraining Upon that McCabe, affidavit the said had proof by attorney, under commenced the act 12, 1887, to proceedings May recover taxes to be due to the State of alleged Virginia certain named, therein who had tendered parties previously tax-receivable he thereof, answered the payment of the order which rule, he had denying validity violated; and on October the matter 8, 1887, thereupon, on to coming “ it was ordered and heard, the court adjudged by said J. B. McCabe is in his disobedience guilty contempt and said that he do forthwith order, dismiss all "suitsunder the act now in the Circuit 12,1887, Court of Lou- May pending doun And the court doth further County. order adjudge, that the said J. B. for his said McCabe, be fined contempt, he be taken into the of the $100; custody marshal him held until this the said fine court, he paid, of the himself said the suits purge contempt by dismissing violation of the brought prosecuted order restraining and that he court; costs of these pay proceedings.” Mr. Roscoe J.Mr. Tucker Conkling Randolph peti tioners. Mr. C. Meredith and V. Mr. W. W. Gordon were with them on their brief.
I. The order or was to injunction restraining proceedings in a state court, beyond court,
IN-RE AYERS.
Argument for Petitioners. Rev. Stat. act of under the Congress. provisions § *14 20, act of c. 1789, This will By judiciary readily appear. limited courts was to writs the circuit issue 14, by power
§ exercise of for the the words “Which be necessary by to the their usages jurisdictions agreeable respective March 2, The act Rev. Stat. of law.” §716. principles “ shall that The writ c. 1793, 22, 5, injunction provided § to States court of United pro not be stay by any granted to in court of a State.” original power any ceedings States Court of''the United award Circuit injunctions In its and with this limitation. from these derived provisions the exercise of its it was as to juris auxiliary original grant act of was March, diction. The limitation placed Amendment it at the same session that the Eléventh conservative of and both were was Constitution proposed, interference. from Federal An exception state exemption ’ this, Nor is in made the case was afterwards bankruptcy.- between there distinction stay proceedings any injunctions their institution. already begun, injunctions prevent 4 v. Scott, 1 Railroad Co. Woods, 175; See v. Daly Sheriff, 10 Blatchf Co., Woods, Fisk v. Union Railroad 386; Pacific re 14 Fed. Rens. & Sara ord, 518; Schwartz, 787; Rep. 617; 18 Fed. &c., Railroad, Railroad v. toga Bennington, Rep. How. Jenness, 7 v. Peck Wolcott, Cranch, 179; 4 v.
Diggs
13
v.
24
v.
Howe,
450;
Jones,
Freeman
How.
625;
Watson
v.
22
Car
231, 250;
Wall.
French v.
Wall.
679;
Hay,
Haines
Dietzsch
340;
91 U.
Dial v.
96 U. S.
254;
S.
penter,
Reynolds,
v.
II. not “suits shall be sustained either equity ade courts the United case where a States any plain, had at law.” In Baker quate, remedy may complete absolute this was held .to be an Biddle, Baldwin, 405, this limitation and that decree on, beyond jurisdiction, any in this We that the case void. insist remedy at were the a court law, proceeding
would this bill in make of no but as force; equity in a state court is null and of this adequate remedy injunction TERM, 1887.
Argument for Petitioners. for reasons stated the first no under force, point, applicable The statute here. the defence complained provides and for of tender trial and if the jury, plea right under the Constitution of the United defendant States be in his ultimate to this court would him. fringed, appeal protect III. had no their bill or Complainants equity original bills. not amended are They tax-payers; No to tender speculators cou coupons. right tax-payers in their asserted behalf. In an amended bill and in pons one sold paper to tax appears complainants on a covenant furnish counsel and payers save harmless But this no buyers. gives equity complainants, as asserted this case. This is shown the decision of court Carter 114 U. S. Greenhow, The case here as there is an abstract issue, presented practical *15 until one, by judicial procedure right tax-payer is denied. And v. 114 U. S. Marge Parsons, 325, this court held that if not could not coupon-holders, tax-payers, have the benefit of It is damnum injunction. absque injuria. The demand an abstract not a complainants decree, prac tical for to them, remedy v. any wrong according Hagood In the Southern, 117 U. S. cases referred to in the only it record of a does tax-payer’s complaint,- appear asserted his in the suits of and tax-payer right complained that his was denied. The bill is without and the right equity void. injunction utterly There is no
IV. not. but if equity complainants, there were there is none defendants, your peti tioners. have no interest in the suits or in They the taxes for are instituted. which they They lawyers. complain ants have no to restrain an equity attorney bringing suit in a matter in which he is not interested. Poore v. Clark, 2 Atk. 515 v. 16 ; Cockburn Ves. 325 Thompson, ; Wilkins 1 v. Meriv. Kerr v. 244, 262; 6 Fry, Watts, Wheat. Cald 550; well 4 Pet. v. 190; Mechanics' Taggart, Bank v. 1 Pet. Seton, 299; 13 Pet. Story Livingston, 359; McArthur 113 v. Scott, S. Williams v. 340; U. 19 Bankhead, Wall. 563.
IfV. then lawful, was the injunction commitment
IN RE AYERS.
Argument for Petitioners. f did it not o transcend the court ? lawful, power Con n thus far bee all that has controverted, we insist that ceding of commitment was without the order authority. it void, 1st, order is because makes the
This term of impris- without end or determinable pnment only upon impossible it is condition; 2d, because and, on the really operative only interest of the who not a is in this case right party and cannot be made but is decreed one, duress against by her violate their officers, imprisonment duty by destroying her rights. Bank the United States, Osborn Wheat. 738, may cited in this but there the again opposition position; — the res was in the hands fund, litigata, here agent rwas.
neve VI. The for only ground law injunction and that unconstitutional, 1887 is the authority thereby given General and other the State Attorney attorneys null void. Is
This that law a violation of the brings up question, Constitution of the United States ? look a moment at the
For circumstances under which it was passed. court
This had decided that an officer after any levy, by tender and not genuine coupons, accepted, illegal officer a made the The officer became trespasser. trespasser if and was liable to the if levied, he he accepted coupons turned out to be which she had a clear spurious, against e herself. These treasurers wer right protect country *16 she and well distrust-their experts, might judgment all which were tendered. receiving
And when tendered and refused, retained the tax-payer and in the Circuit brought Court of coupons trespass and back in recovered the tax damages paid by The State, these for her officers, levy. paying judgments tax was without either or paid and the money coupons; of the to State these so tendered and taken right coupons back has been and none have ever been denied, delivered such- tax-payers. TERM, 1887.
462
Argument
for Petitioners.
this state of
It is obvious
same
things,
coupon
serve as a tender for
in fraud of the
many tax-payers,
might
the State to have her taxes
or in
paid
right
money
these
coupons.
—
all this
To avoid
in cou-
compel
tax-payer
pay
he refused to
taxes
what
pay money,
verify
pons
gen-
and
to forbear
tendered,
uineness
the ex
parte
— the statute of
12, 1887,
by levy
May
procedure
passed.
in its
face,
On
there
preamble,
procedure provided,
taint
is no
unconstitutionally,
according
rulings
this court. See
Co.,
Hoboken
18
Murray v.
How. 272; Col
her own courts as suitor. If this is not a breach of the State under the Eleventh what Amendment, immunity is its value ?
A historical epitome proposal this adoption amendment is Alexander pertinent inquiry. Hamilton, in the 81st number of the Federalist, discusses the question whether a State can be sued in the Federal courts a citizen of another State. He seems to treat of her possibility sued one of her own citizens as too remote even for being He declares the fear of such a construction is hypothesis. chimerical.
But within a few after the Government went into years in Chisholm Court, 2 Dall. operation Supreme Georgia, entered citizen a State. judgment Many
IN EE AYEES. Argument for Petitioners.
such suits this court, them, most pending perhaps were of another all, citizens The one the States. by records in this v. court show the original Huger following: Carolina, South Oswald v. York, New v. Massachu Vassall setts, Von v. v. South Stophust Carolina, Maryland, Cutting v. Hollingsworth Grayson Virginia, Virginia.
The- Chisholm was rendered on judgment Georgia 18th of alarm 1793. Great was February, among produced the States the 20th of decision, by February, amendment was Senate of proposed read States which : “ The shall not extend to suits law or judicial power any commenced or one of -the United prosecuted equity, or States citizens of another or State,., citizens by subjects State.” Its consideration' was until any foreign delayed when it had assumed the form 21, 1794, now has. January “ The shall not be construed extend to judicial power suit in or law commenced or equity, one prosecuted against the United States Citizens of another or Citizens or State.” Subjects any Foreign
Mr. Gallatin an amendment, in cases proposed “Except under treaties made under the of the United arising authority States;” This was down. voted the On same an amendment was so that day proposed article would read thus: “The of the United judicial power States extends all cases in law which one equity United States but none shall be where party, prosecuted cause action shall have arisen before ratification of this amendment.” This was voted down. The amendment — was then the Senate 23; finally adopted passed ayes, 2. noes, It went to the House An amendment Representatives. “ there these When each State words: shall proposed
have made in their own courts previously provision whereby — suit to effect.” Noted down may prosecuted ayes, 8; noes, 77. Eleventh Amendment was then adopted the House: 81; 9. It well to notice in noes, ayes, on the 2d March, act passing passed Congress TERM,
Argument for Petitioners. which forbade Federal court to injunctions by stay proceed *18 in a state court. ings was ratified in
The amendment
In
1798.
v. Vir
Grayson
3 Dall.
this court directed
ginia,
process against Virginia
to be served on the Governor and
General of the
Attorney
State.
v.
holdWe essential an indicated, destroys Because, already — her debtor sue the power of State autonomy function IN RE AYERS. Argument for Petitioners. her own court and her own It them for imprisons officers. her as her law officers.
asserting Collector v. right Day, is conclusive Wall. on If the State can point. only sue is not an professional attorneys, injunction upon which the only invisible, imma possible agency through terial State act, can clear destruction tanto of State pro As cannot a State from autonomy? you enjoin suing —as cannot serve the if could do you injunction, you so, invisible as she can exert this func intangible entity, tion human there be doubt that in agencies cutting —can off you these leave the State maimed and a sovereign helpless, will without and without ? to act In fact it is obvious capacity that to constrain must constrain these her.you agencies, her action; sine non of if this and, be so, how is this qua *19 amendment of avail unable to if, touch cut off her her, you means of acting? only
In2.
executive officer,
General
suing
(on
Attorney
whom, as a
v.
representative
Grayson Virginia,
this court ordered
the State to be
process against
served), you
sue
it.
In the
State;
cases, 100
S.
you enjoin
Virginia
U.
303-370, this court held that
officer
aof
State
every
who
for
acted
the execution of its laws was the State
.
the Fourteenth
under
Shall
Amendment
the State be bound
for their act and
their act not be the State’s under the im
yet
of the Eleventh
?'
Amendment
munity
Suppose
injunction
was
and all
General
District
granted against
Attorney
of th United States to
Attorneys
suits
the name
prevent
of the United States, could there
a doubt
be
that that would
be an
? See
Government
injunction upon
United States v.
286;
4 How:
v.
9
McLemore,
Hill
How.
386;
3. This decree interferes with the discretion of these officers, are not ministerial officers. Let tñey remem merely no suit is ordered under this law man bered, who against has his taxes. The law is on this The paid point. explicit General and other are offi Attorney attorneys discretionary with functions which discre cers, demand charged intelligent vol. cxxrn —30 TERM, 1887.
466 Argument for Petitioners. be the are held to State. See cases Board
tion. In such they m S. Comb, 531; v. Mc 92 U. v. Cunningha Liquidation and cases 109 U. S. &c., Railroad, reviewed. Macon, invisible mind the State (the and will of Where sovereign) the mind will the dis according through operate and must be are the State so held, of its officers, cretion means See Eleventh Amendment Louisiana nothing. Greenhow, v. U. S. 711; U. S. Antoni 107 Jumel, 769; This last case U. S. 52. Southern, very Hagood per decree were the officersin for suit and their tinent, on their discretion. official capacity operated 114 U. Cases, S. 4. The cited Virginia Coupon In these cases the the views presented. majority several : based the court their conclusions (1) grounds case there is was but this discretion. ministerial; officer (2) actual In case there was which was taking property, which unless by respondeat superior, justified trespass seized and held him. In that case officer denied property. none ; and has he In case he holds seized sues one this but if he lid so confess, a confessed debtor: who is merely no invasion of which a valid is no right trespass plea suing The officer in that ex at redress. case mero law will might, Here the for cannot, have there attorney mota, trespassed. has interest and none. In and he no takes no trespass, (3) made on the the officer citizen, that case aggression should have case he the court held he redress. him who is debtor whether summons none; try makes he on his tender discharged. Clearly he coupon ought *20 at strikes not this. This citadel of do very cases govern A is without A right trespass. State’s immunity. levy of which a not a can wrong suit without good party ground can if his defence is he allowed, enjoin. complain her citizens a fair sue, has a trial, giving right Virginia can neither nor her officers so she enjoined. doing either two must be discharged upon VIII. prisoners main- courtj If any ground previously grounds: (1) transcehded or tained, was without jurisdiction did until impossible (as imprisonment prisoner IN RE AYERS. 467 Argument Meredith’s Mr. for Petitioners. this court will Ex improper thing), discharge. Parks, parte 18, 23;
93 U. S. Ex 114 Wilson, U. S. parte Ex 417; parte 106 U. Ex S. 106 Curtis, 371; Carll, U. S. parte Ex 521; 113 U. S. Ex 328; 113 U. S. Bigelow, parte Fisk, 713; parte 110 U. S. Ex 651; Ex Yarbrough, 100 parte parte Virginia, Siebold, U. S. Ex 100 U. S. 339, 343; Ex parte 371; parte Ex; 120 U. S. 121 782 U. S. parte Bain, 1: Harding, or, (2) this court has a case where on final appellate power ultimately, and on decree interlocutory proceedings, liberty unjustly taken but within away contrary equity, jurisdictional insist that there is no wé reason power, good why, infmorem this court should not release libertatis, under habeas grant If not, continue until final corpus. deprivation might decree.
Mr. C. V. Meredith filed a
brief for
separate
petitioners,
I. As to the nature of
habeas
citing:
Ex
remedy by
corpus,
113 U. S.
Fisk,
;718 Ex
100
339
parte
parte
;
U. S.
Virginia,
Ex
104
Rowland,
U. S. 604.
II. That
parte
the Virginia
statute
not
was
unconstitutional, Antoni v. Greenhow, 107
U. S. 769 Poindexter v.
;
114 U. S.
Greenhow,
270; Ruther
v.
2 Wheat.
Greene,
196;
v.
112
Supervisors
Brogden,
ford
U. S.
v.
Beers
20
261;
Arkansas,
How. 527;
Wash
Bank of
20
v.
How. 530
Arkansas,
ington
; United States v. Dickson,
against decided this that no court, frequently discussion, opposi tion to the of this will court, decisions in this brief. indulged far So as the assumed this brief are concerned, it positions for deemed to ask modification necessary slightest of of announced those decisions. Here principles will be those stare principles recognized decisis. suit as what is a a State, first arose question of Amendment
after
Eleventh
to the Consti
adoption
of
v.
tution
case Osborn Bank
the United States, 9
to that
we
Wheat. 738. As
decision
submit:
That
(1)
the case
not call
a decision of
did
for
because the Bank
question,
not an
but a
individual,
was
part
government
It
States.
was'held
v.
United
McCulloch
4
Maryland,
Wheat.
the Bank was an instrument
316, that
which was
into effect the
proper
“necessary
carrying
powers
the United
vested
States.” That con
government
reaffirmed in
struction was
Osborn v. Bank
the United
is no
See
There
States.
the United
p.
provision
Constitution
States
National Government from
preventing
No
State.
decision therefore' of the
was
suing
question
called for
the case.
insist
We
that this court has re
(2)
overruled the
announcement made
that case that
peatedly
“the Eleventh
Amendment
restrains the jurisdiction
the Constitution over
suits
is,
granted
limited to
suits in
those
which State is a
necessity,
party
It is
true that
record.”
guide
recognized
16 Wall.
Davis v.
220. But this latter
Gray,
case has
limit
this court
been
to the extreme
spoken
going
we insist that
jurisdiction Notwithstanding
recognition,
.
so
test,
announced,
has-
been
frequently
disregarded by
this court. See
v.
10 How.
Trapnall,
190; Curran
Woodruff
15 How.
v.
State Bank
Ohio
Arkansas,
304;
v.
16
Knoop,
369;
How.
v.
Board
Mc
92
Comb,
531;
U. S.
Liquidation
Kendall v.
12
Pet.
Decatur
Pauld
613;
14
497;
Pet.
United States v.
17 How.
ing,
Seamen,
225, 230;
United States v.
How.
Guthrie,
284;
Johnson,
Mississippi
IN AYERS. Argument for Petitioners. Meredith’s
Mr.
*22
McGarrahan,
9. Wall.
v.
575;
9
Secretary
v. Register,
field
U. S.
Jumel,
v.
Poindexter
711;
Louisiana
107
v.
298;
Wall.
S.
There this
a
court,
114 U.
270.
Greenhow,
by majority
Mr. Justice
held that that suit
Matthews,
delivered by
opinion,
a
and enumerated
State,
the tests
not one
against
whether a suit is
this court decides
a State or
against
Whether
are as follows:
a State
The tests
is named
(1)
not.
Whether the
record;
on the
action is
(2)
as a party
directly
Whether the suit was
contract;
con
(3)
brought
upon
an executive
discretion of
officer of
a State;
trol
(4)
suit was
for the
Whether
administer
brought
purpose
funds
Whether it
actually
public treasury;
(5)
ing
officers of the State to do
acts which
compel
is
attempt
of its
a
contract
constitute
performance
State;
(6)
case is such that the State
is a
Where
necessary party,
defendant
that the
to it.
may by protected
liability
of this court held in
As
case
cited
minority
just
case was one
State,
that
cannot be
that
against
presumed
were of
that
the tests
that
enumerated
opinion
just
more limited.
It can
therefore be
should
that
regarded
comes within the
that
said tests is
case
held
this court
any
suit
State. We
far
insist,
to be a
so
as this
brief
that the suit of
claims,
comes within the third
complainants
tests.
fifth
has
court
decided what
This
is
repeatedly
ministerial
is one
and what
exercise of official
act,
requiring
discre
States v. Guthrie,
tion. See United
stantially party against asked, laid down within this court in v. principle Hagood 52. 117 U. S. The bill Southern, shows no claim personal the defendants. It does not any-of allege one them commit a in this proposes trespass, differing from Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio 114 Railroad, U. S. 311. TERM, 1887. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. is without VI. bill should have been dis equity v. missed, Parsons U. S. ;327 Marye, Hagood Southern, supra.
The counsel for
also filed with their brief, a
petitioners
copy
the brief of Mr. John A.
and Mr.
J. C.
Campbell,
Egan,
Hew
Louisiana
and New York v.
Hampshire
Louisiana,
Mr. D. H. Chamberlain Mr. William L. Royall, op posing. will
It not be now disputed only question arising that of the record, court below 6th, to make order of June This restraining ques *23 will tion The constitutional and upon: (1) depend statutory to the United States Circuit jurisdiction given Courts; (2) of of the bill; the averments and sufficiency (3) subject . It matter of the suit is believed that all the which questions can be considered determining general of question juris diction of the court these below can be deter proceedings, mined without and difficulty simple application this cases decided court. already
The chief of these cases is found peculiarity in the present that the fact defendants bill —the original petitioners — in the the State Vir- present proceedings officers of This fact if not the foremost, most im- ginia. suggests to be considered. portant, question of all and reduced to its
I. state- disguises Stripped simplest which arises under this view ment, of the case is, question be a state the United States May enjoined Circuit officer what an unconstitutional Court state statute doing directs from him to do ? is called to statement of Attention it issue, for believed to consideration which is every involved express really in these cases. What described two lines cases, on this may bearing in the of this decisions court. One
question, appear reported line, tends to restrict the the courts to act right
IN RE AYERS. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. and officersfor the enforcement duties state obligations towards Another which tends line, parties. private it and to enforce somewhat and to maintain right broadly fully. two lines of cases are marked the dis-
These general by and which has tinction strict liberal construction prevailed and in our and so extensively steadily judicial political history; a distinction which is natural and inevitable, arising human as well as from nature of the nature of the language mind. human line
The case of cases above referred leading first to be the case of Louisiana v. Jumel, said U. S. this court in 1882. decided of Louisi Legislature a statute of for an issue of state ana, bonds provided for the series of state bonds. refunding purpose existing act terms for the This of a tax provided levy annually mills the dollar on the assessed value of all real 5£ State for the personal property purpose pay the interest of these new bonds. The ing principal derived from this funds were directed to be levy kept to that and no other; apart appropriated purpose was made a or officer or felony any agent liqui dator of State to divert said funds from such purpose. ” “ This tax was further made annual tax until continuing and- interest of the bonds should be principal paid redeemed; of said funds made appropriation ” “ a 'annual the same continuing appropriation during period; *24 it made and was of the officers, act, duty specified “ tax to collect said and said interest and redeem annually pay until said bonds the same shall be It was fully discharged.” further in the same act that each of provided provision was, and be, act should declared a contract between the be, of Louisiana and State each and holder of such bonds. every after the of this the State Shortly act, passage adopted to its amendment constitution of the said issue bonds declaring “ to create a valid contract between the State and each and of holder said bonds which the State shall no means every and no wise And the said bonds declared to impair.” were
472 TERM, 1887. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. be “a of valid the State in favor of obligation holder any thereof.” And the courts were forbidden to enjoin pay- ment of the thereof, interest or the and principal col- levy lection of the tax therefor. 1880, new constitution of Louisiana January, went effect,
into which it was that the interest on provided bonds under issued of which 1874, act bore 7 cent per interest, should be fixed at 2 cent for five 3 per years, cent per thereafter, and fifteen 4 cent years and per thereafter, the annual tax for the of said limiting payment interest to three mills. The new constitution further that the provided of the of bonds due 1874, coupons falling January “ should be remitted and interest taxes collected to meet said transferred to of hereby defray expenses the state government.”
This case thus contract between presented (1) and individuals her bonds, interest at holding whereby 7 per cent was secured to the holders aby perpetual levy taxes; appropriation (2) constitutional enact- subsequent ment the rate of interest without the reducing consent of the funds bondholders, raised and in diverting already from the of the interest to which treasury, payment had they been and devoted. originally pledged
This court in its cited and commented opinion Osborn v. Bank the United 9 States, Wheat. Davis 738; v. Gray, 16 203; Wall. Board Liquidation Mc Comb, S.U. and United 531; States Lee, U. S. 196. The scope limit Of its decision are clear. The suits were suits, of this court, judgment a State compel execute “ contract, but to compel the control assuming administration of the fiscal affairs the State to the extent ” the end in necessary accomplish view; is to to the extent say, (1) fiscal officers restraining the State from the taxes collected applying use were devoted 1879; legislation (2) such officers to said funds to the compelling apply payment interest the bonds principal required by legislation *25 AYERS.
IN RE Opposition to Petitions. Argument in U. S. followed Greenhow, of Antoni case The Antoni mandamus for by a It was petition immediately. to Richmond, compel city the treasurer against bim of the bond issue taxes, in coupon to accept payment issue, of the act terms which, authorizing “ of all tax collectors all receivable payment made State.” due the demands and debts taxes, had an act the State passed providing,
In 1882, Virginia tender of substance, coupons payment upon the same for the should receive collectors pur- the tax taxes, at the same verification,” and, and “identification pose his in current taxes tax-payer pay should time, require his tax-payer might bring and funds; upon payment issue should Commonwealth, thereupon suit against tendered were whether genu- tried coupons be jury, issue favor of a decision ine coupons, upon legal favor, in his and a money-already judgment tax-payer, to him out of the be him for taxes should repaid paid a mandamus that when act further provided treasury. receive a tax collector to coupons should compel brought first to his should taxes, pay required, tax-payer should be framed as an issue taxes money, thereupon tendered were genuine coupons; whether coupons in favor of the this issue a final decision of tax-payer, to be received, issue mandamus should requiring'the should already paid by-the tax-payer money thereupon him. be refunded that, case it will thus be seén careful of this
From a study no decides court, ques- opinion presented state officers to as to the judicial/process, tion amenability enforcement, for the either protection against impairment, of a con- and that the minority of a state contract; opinion to the extent of the court goes curring judgment the State that there is no remedy holding itself: do acts consti- state and that a suit to compel officers a State is a suit contract, tute a performance of itself. Railroad & Brunswick Macon
The case of Cunningham m TERM, Opposition
Argument to Petitions. *26 at Terra, 109 U. S. decided October was a suit Co., 446, 1888, Governor, a citizen of the the State Virginia against and of the the defendant Treasurer State railroad Georgia, and certain directors of the and other company, company In that the State of case the State of Georgia. citizens.of the the had endorsed bonds of railroad and company, Georgia the road as its taken a lien hav security. upon company interest, the Governor took failed to of the pay possession ing it in the hands of a who receiver, and sold to the road put then took of the The State and road, State. sub possession in bonds the of the stituted its own endorsed bonds of place The holders of second the bonds of the company. mortgage issued after the State’s endorsement same company, and before default in former bonds company’s interest to foreclose their and a bill in to set filed mortgage equity to the and to be in former sale let State, aside the prior — — in state officers Governor Treasurer de hen. The the court below dismissed the bill. murred, the court examined the In deciding general ques which the tion judicial proceedings affecting was not a and made the State classi party, following general fication of the cases: Cases where previous (1) property State, or which the State had an interest, property s before the court or under it came control without being from the taken where forcibly possession government, if it intervene to claim chose, or might, protect Where an individual was sued in tort for (2) some act rights. another, or where regard person injurious property, that he was acted- under orders his defence of the govern In these the' court said: he is cases, ment. not sued or as, “ the officer of the is, because he but indi as an government, court is not ousted of vidual, jurisdiction because he as as such officer. To make out serts his authority defence he was that his sufficient in show law to authority must protect the court to this class the case of the United him,” assigned S. 196. 106 U. Lee, v. Cases where “the law has (3) States an officer .of Government a well-defined imposed to a matter not regard specific duty affecting general
IN RE AYERS. Opposition to Petitions. Argument but Government, functions of perform powers individuals have a distinct interest, one or more of which ance Under this of enforcement last by judicial process.” capable case of Davis 16 Wall. the court referred Gray, head, “ It is clear that remarked Gov enjoining of one of his State in the ernor of the executive performance of sound doctrine.” the case functions, verge goes S. a suit in U. Southern, equity Hagood the Blue Nailroad Com Nidge assignees brought General of State of South the Comptroller pany against Treasurers within several the State, and the Carolina, County “ defendants, Treasurers, that the bemay County praying the said revenue bond to receive scrip decreed payment due orator to State of South Carolina, *27 said taxes by your refusal to be so, on their do and that they may enjoined the of the said tax orators your by selling property enforcing that, and on such the manner, refusal, other lien or in- of of be on the orators said taxes declared your property The “The court said: case thus comes be discharged.” v. Jumel, the Louisiana U. within 107 S. authority directly the cases decrees the were not ... 711. present only in official the defendants their that but, there capacity, against as and no mistake to the nature extent of the might duty their in also successors office.” to be And against performed, out between the distinction this case proceeded point the v. States, v. United Davis Bank Board Gray, Osborn Mc and Allen v. v. Baltimore & Comb, Ohio Liquidation Co. Railroad examined all cases in this cases now the court said that in our can be line of which, belong judgment, we described as have the cases which delimiting restricting to which the extent the judicial process may applied behalf of contract invoked private protection rights, The boundaries which these cases mark out complainants. distinct, the nature of the are as as admits subject probably, in a condensed to the extent form, of. Stated they go That affirmative relief is when declaring: (1) positive the of a enforcement, through judicial process, sought, TERM, 1887. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. the state officers contracts, are the only State’s although is in substance a suit defendants, the suit State, Amendment; 11th That and barred when the (2) as in Jumel, relief Louisiana extent of goes sought, assume control and courts to adminis- virtually requiring of the executive functions of the tration of state part gov- suit substance ernment, for a the courts of it calls but functions of usurpation sovereign. political line We turn now to second of cases which we have somewhat described as broadly maintaining fully right of the courts exercise the judicial duty power pro contracts, embodied state and guarded tecting rights of the United States. the Constitution and most
The earliest well commanding authority, as, judicial power amplest expression perhaps, duty Bank in such cases, Osborn Wheat. do not hesitate to We with boldness say, high we confidence, case warrant- rely degree all relief which was suit below out of sought ing which these have The court is here proceedings sprung. pre- at sented with record as it printed lies large this court, in the archives of which shows more than the fully that, on all Wheaton, it is an author- report points, express in this bill. ity positions support complainants counsel referred to a of that printed record, copy [The which had been filed this case. After that case reviewing *28 at counsel length, continued:]
It is to minimize the sometimes of sought force scope it as this decision the by representing affecting only question the seized the restoration bank. An money exam from the as we ination of case shows, have that the seen, decree the below not decreed restoration of the funds seized, but decreed a the perpetual injunction against defendants, state “ from to collect officers, tax has accrued proceeding any or hereafter from the accrue wider the act may complainants, the mOhio, General the bill and Assembly proceedings the mentioned.” other words, state officers forever were m
IN AYERS. RE Argument Opposition in to Petitions. effect, or from into statute executing, carrying
enjoined them in terms to do what a statute which commanded question, The of human Circuit Court succession events enjoined. two cases more identical seldom nearly presents principle and the Bank States, than v. the United present Osborn — more than case, controlling identity stronger — and on the case facts, of mere we identity .authority this. rest in this similar
The next case involving questions important 203. In that a is Wall. court, Davis Gray, person a a railroad who had been receiver holding large appointed State, made to it lands, enjoin sought grant of a new constitu- which, officers the State adoption for the State, forfeited to the had declared said tion, grant lands other from said benefit of its school fund, granting Governor of Davis; was The suit persons. brought of the State. Land Commissioner Keuchler, facts, These make case even stronger emphatic, more States. than Bank the United direction, in its Osborn v. the Chief Justice and here The case decided court held that a one Associate Justice dissenting. in a case States, Circuit Court proper equity, a state law con- a state officer enjoin executing may the United when such with the Constitution of flict that, will violate the execution complainant; rights if it made a is it should be concerned, where the State party, a be done is but that fact it cannot can done; case it, to do and the sufficient reason may pro- omitting if in all ceed to State officers, decree respects . And, that, were a the record. finally, State party will not look court suit, who are deciding parties officer record; a state that, beyond making party statute does not make the State’s though party, stand behind and she action, officer’s may prompt him as the real interest. party clear Davis express Gray perfectly
Although there can of which court, decision of this about the meaning to invoke no case doubt, present necessary *29 478 TERM, Opposition
Argument
to Petitions.
full
It
its
its
extent.
decides
but
all,
authority
than all that
much more
case.
required
present
v. Board
The suit was for a to restrain the Board perpetual injunction Louisiana, of the State of from certain Liquidation using bonds for the aof certain debt claimed to be due liquidation (cid:127) from the State to a private- from corporation, issuing any bonds in other state of such debt. payment alleged This court considered the distinctly jurisdictional question involved, the fact that the suit was state arising ' officers. Lee, United States U. S. was a suit in ejectment Lee Kaufman and to recover brought by Strong, pos session of what is known as the estate in Arlington Virginia. Kaufman and Strong holding merely agents repre sentatives of the United the land in States, question being use as national for the most cemetery, part, not a States, to the suit, defended the action though party law to submit itself as a proper officers,,though declining defendant to the of the court. The writs of error in this court were taken one the United prosecuted, States, eo the other nomine, .by General, Attorney names of Kaufman and the defendants below. Strong, This court stated one of the two here on the questions arising record, follows: “ 1. Could action be maintained st the defendants agan for the of the land under possession the circum controversy stances of the relation of that to the United possession States, clear the however to that be in legal right possession might ”1 the plaintiff At the court stated that the error in page plaintiffs behalf of the United asserted the “that proposition court can no render in favor of the judgment plaintiff against RE
IN AYERS. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. *30 in the latter the because hold the action, defendants the prop- and it United and States, as officers agents erty ” said, and the uses; lawful court public appropriated “ on the rests the United This principle proposition sued without in consent, cannot lawfully States can be no action and that maintained indi- against any consent, such where the must vidual without judgment depend of the United States to held such the property right or the Government. The first as officers agents persons is conceded to be this the established branch of proposition this at the court, ; of and of the law this country present day deduction from the first is as second necessary proper denied.” with elaborate then an examination of
The court proceeded and of in and the cases this cases, American English especially bear and cited court general question, espe upon v. The Bank relied Osborn especially upon cially v. It then affirmed the Davis Gray. States United judg of the court below. ment 114 S. was Greenhow, v. U. decided
Poindexter upon of Osborn v. Bank States United authority especially Lee. In that case action of and United States detinue who had was tendered tax-receiv by tax-payer, duly brought his taxes, who, able payment against person tax as under a void office, collector, law, under color acting had State, refused receive Legislature passed and had seizure and sale of the tender, proceeded, by enforce collection of such plaintiff, property it was held that such action was the tax taxesand State, collector wrong-doer, personally, of the 11th within the And was Amendment. meaning that such tax when further held sued as a collector, wrong rest on cannot the assertion of his defence as an officer doer, but is bound to that he acted establish has under State, and must a valid a valid law. authority, produce warrant; his thus almost iden which constitutes following, court tical decision Cun terms, language & Brunswick Railroad v. Macon ningham Company, U. S. 446. TERM,
Argument Opposition to Petitions. & Allen Baltimore Ohio Railroad 114 U. Company, S. the defendant 311, Allen, below, ivas the Auditor of the the other defendants the Treasurer of the State and the being Treasurer of In that Augusta County3 case an Virginia. injunction collection of sought after prevent taxes, a tender tax-receivable and it payment wás coupons; held as sanctioned decisions of this by repeated court, and as common and unquestioned practice cases, similar was authorized. In this remedy by injunction case, also, the court relied Osborn v. Bank upon as well of v. Me Board Liquidation Comb, numerous other oases cited. therein
In Ralston v. Missouri
Commissioners,
Fund
IN AYERS. Opposition Argument to Petitions. v. 107 Co. Parkersburg, Wall. 460;
15 Transportation S. 691. U. now, in the court and is below,
II. It was
urged
that that
in this case,
of the Circuit Court
the jurisdiction
or
restraining
injunction
court
issuing
prevented
inis
these
Stat.,
Rev.
order, by
provision
§
“
shall not be
any
The writ of
injunction
granted
words:
court of
States to
stay' proceedings
court
be author
case where
injunction
except
This
law
bankruptcy.”
ized
relating
proceedings
by any
1793;
in force since the act
has been
May
section
it would
case,
deprive
it is
present
applicable.
if
order
to issue
ques
cif
restraining
Court
Circuit
power
is, that
in answer to this objection
Our
tion.
position
or
which are actually
pend
begun
proceedings
applies
the writ of
at the time when
injunction
court
state
ing
Co.,
v. Union
Railway
for and issued. Fisk
is applied
Pacific
Woods,
3
v.
Co.
;
Fitzpatrick,
578
Blatchford,
Lottery
10
&c., v.
Dillon, 52;
Stock,
4
Moore Holliday,
222;
Live
v. Bondurant,
1
S.
Watson
Abbott,
388;
U.
&c.,
City,
Crescent
restraining at the time had been restraining no suits begun ceded *32 issued. order was advanced, has been metaphysical argument
A somewhat to suits the section only the view that to applies in answer “stay” word to the effect actually depending, and means acts, all to cover must be steps, interpreted 720 § which courts, in state including result in suits staying, may of suits or case bringing any way any the prevention If to is too elastic comprehensive. This there. plainly almost then sense, any to here, means prevent “stay” said to be forbidden be or order may restraining injunction ” “ is a in a state court section, this phrase Proceedings or It means no commentary, gloss. interpretation, needing cxxni —31 vol.
482 TERM, 1887. Opposition
Argument to Petitions. and must unless excessive is be mean, to attributed refining to our which are early (1793),proceedings legislators pending in a state and not which court, contem proceedings may or to be there. plated designed brought now to the cases cited is the case opposition single Bennington, Railroad Co. v. Rensselaer & Saratoga &c., Rail If Fed. 671. circumstances and facts Rep. Co., road that case make it would authority, opposition cases which been have above cited, be said to stand alone, and to be Avhichholds that only authority United States courts are 720 from prohibited by restraining § suits which have parties been bringing rioUalready begun in the state courts.
III. itBut that the case complainants present said do not show themselves to have such an interest in the subject matter of the suit as to them the court give standing below.
The substantial averments bill aré: upon point That the the OAvnersof $100,000 were worth (1) complainants of tax-receivable had coupons Virginia, they over That sold $30,000; have of that paid $50,000 (2) amount for $15,000, more, who tax-payers Virginia, have tendered the same to the state officials in proper pay taxes, ment of their and that said officers have refused to if receive the That the officers of the State same; are (3) the act of 12, enforce permitted May complain ants will unable $50,000 their remaining sell at and thus tax-payers any price, that their in the same will be entire It property destroyed. to do more than observe here that the averments unnecessary of the bill true, must be taken as for the of these purposes bill no answer to the been filed. proceedings, having arises, these question averments, whether they sufficient in court. The give complainants standing authorities which have been cited to show heretofore Parsons, want of sufficient interest in this suit are Marye 114 U. S. U. S. Under Southern, Hagood these have no decisions it is that the urged legal complainants *33 483
IN RE AYERS. Opposition Argument to Petitions. because are not they complaint, tax-payers
ground tendered and that as to never, such, any coupons; have no law had the State them passed obligation violating Contract. her these features: That the v. Parsons presented
Marye (1) intended was a which was mandatory injunction, relief sought of the contract to cou a receive to effect performance specific That taxes; (2) complainant, having payment pons avail of the benefit of the to could himself no taxes only pay, trans taxes, to receive contract coupons payment a them to That tax-payer; (3) having ferring .transferred his own interest he would have them, extinguished have himself of further and would coupons deprived of the State’s contract. insist to upon performance right it seen that: is Unlike however, In the (1) present relief which v. Parsons, Marye complainants of an to state relief restrain seek injunction is preventive The value of the officers from (2) destroying coupons; their in this case Time transferred $50,000 complainants have tendered them, who ta-x-payers, That as refused; been $50¿- have (3) remaining of the act of 12,1887, execution is 000, the May alleged, the value .of these will destroy entirely coupons. Manifestly, the case of does not control the Marye Parsons therefore, case. present U. has Southern, S. been stated already
Hagood in which bears it, in this only point argument. that the there court says complain question,
present “ a cannot be as matter of that con said, law, that: It ant, -until been broken has tendered for taxes tract is scrip] [the nor a and been refused; due from holder -legal right holder is threatened unless he-is a situation to make for that He has no tender purpose. legal right present taxes, received for unless he owes taxes for have scrip it and in order receivable; used he must it to another, of the taxes transfer the payment would himself all and that divest holder, the new right is no which he enforce contract longer party TERM, 1887.
Argument Opposition to Petitions. he has ceased to have which a interest.” How far, legal then, the case of v. Southern differs from the Ilagood present need not further ease out. pointed
This us to the act of an examination of 12, brings May and it is case of the 1887, evident that tender of every heretofore or hereafter, is to coupons tax-payer subjected a suit for his taxés, tender, notwithstanding upon trial of he is to file his compelled the.suit with the coupons he is next clerk; to the bond from his required produce which was cut and to that was coupon cut prove there- actually he from; is next forbidden to introduce evidence of expert genuineness coupons, though coupons and not if he engraved signed fails manually; thereupon in his defence, as he must fail, the of inevitably judgment court will be that he has failed to establish the of genuineness his and that hence, coupons; are not to being spurious, they returned but to remain in the him, of the clerk. custody is, therefore, clear as a mathematical demonstration,
It that the effect the act of 12, is May con sequester, which have destroy coupons may been tendered fiscate or tohich be tendered. may heretofore hereafter Who shall that this does not constitute such an say interest on the of these as warrants them in part complainants coming into court of for ? relief equity appropriate Certainly, cases of v. Parsons and v. Southern Manye do Hagood not, in the remotest stand their degree, way.
IY. We assert the total and palpable' unconstitutionality act the whole 1887, on account of May the pro visions act of that itself. That act, directs foreground, the officers of the State to for requires suits bring and. of taxes from all who recovery have tax-payers ten already dered or who hereafter tender, tax-receiv able bonds of of their Virginia, taxes. payment This alone the act as not stamps unconstitutional, but flagrant open solemn contempt and repeatedly affirmed decision this court in Poindexter v. Greenhow.
The decision and the effect Poindexter v. Greenhow is act of the State of any which directs Virginia any pro- RE
IN AYERS.
Opinion of the Court. him tax-payer, purpose compelling ceeding taxes after a tender of is the same again, coupons, pay and void. unconstitutional this broad 12, 1887, is,
The act ground, May that decision, covered totally completely irredeem unconstitutional. ably that what desire to out here, we especially, point closing, ; is not in our case remedy is sought present affirmative not act we do seek compel performance say, fall, state officers. It does then, on the
whatever part within the laid down Louisiana under this aspect, principle *35 of the four or in the Jumel, concurring opinion separate in We are this court Antoni v. Greenhow. of seeking justices of ; no acts but to restrain to simply performance compel from the value of the State the officers destroying Virginia the act of 12, our 1887. May by enforcing filed a brief, Mr. also Royall separate opposing. after delivered the stating Me. Matthews Justice the court.
opinion court, the decisions of this that while It is established by for "the exercise of contempt power punishment is not to orders, courts of their general jurisdiction, subject by " a writ of error or to this when court," review by appeal yet, con undertakes, the United States court of by process a for with order man to tempt, refusing comply punish had order no make, itself, which court authority and the order for void, without jurisdiction, punishing being " " void; that, when contempt proceed equally in such a in for case results imprisonment, ing contempt its writ of habeas will, court by corpus, discharge prisoner." 113 U. S. Fisk, 713, Ex 718. parte 104 S. the commissioners of Rowland,
In Ex U. parte a dis were, Alabama on writ habeas corpus, county had this court by charged imprisonment of the anof been alleged contempt adjudged consequence District of States the Middle Circuit Court of United for TERM, 486
Opinion of the Court. the command of Alabama, refusing obey peremptory writ mandamus issued that court them to requiring levy " certain taxes. This court said If the (page 612): command of the writ mandamus was all peremptory respects as the Circuit Court had jurisdiction make, proceedings for the reviewable But here. if contempt the com mand was in or in whole part of the beyond court, power so much as was excess writ, of jurisdiction, was void, and the had no court law to right punish any contempt of its unauthorized Such is the settled requirements. rule of decision this court. Ex parte Lange, 163; Ex Wall. 93 U. S. Ex Parks, 18; parte parte Siebold, U. S. 371; Ex 100 U.S.3 parte Virginia, 39." 121 U. S. it Bain, was held that a Ex parte prisoner
who had been convicted, tried, sentenced to imprisonment, a Circuit of the Court States, the indictment having been amended the district leave of the attorney, by court, after it had been returned grand entitled to jury, his under writ of habeas discharge issued corpus this court, that the was void. The ground proceeding court said " It is of no avail, under such (page 13): circumstances, to say still that the court has of the jurisdiction and of person crime; for, has though possession person, and would have if crime, it were jurisdiction properly presented by indictment, the offence is and the gone, *36 no court has to further in right the proceed any of progress the case for want of indictment." in
The the question present therefore, is whether the 6, order the Circuit Court of June 1887, the forbidding from suits under the act of petitioners bringing 12, 1887, May in name and on the behalf of the State as its attor Virginia, for the in recovery taxes, neys, which the payment had tendered tax-payers previously tax-receivable is coupons, an order that which court had law to make. by The power is whether the Circuit Court question really had jurisdiction the suit entertain in which that order was because made, the sole of the bill a purpose are, final prayer by decree, defendants perpetually enjoin the in taking any steps
IN EE AYEES. 487 Opinion of the Court. the If court had 12, of the act 1887. power, May
execution the to entertain the that the made in suit for record, case as a it had equal provisional remedy, grant purpose, power, of which the order, violation constitutes the restraining the petitioners. contempt adjudged against of the is on the contention petitioners part principal in in a law, fact and them, is, suit, that the against nominally are, whose officers State of Virginia, suit against 11th Amend denied to entertain is by jurisdiction " that Constitution, which declares judicial ment shall not be construed extend of the United States power commenced or in or suit law prosecuted equity, of another or States citizens one of the United by by hand, On State." the other or citizens subjects any foreign cause, that it counsel contended is by complainants discharge who have petitioners, argued against not within the suit is prohibition. doctrine of this es court, as a settled It must be regarded " a that the whether decisions, recent
tablished question by Amendment the 11th suit is within prohibition reference to the nominal on the determined parties by always 270, Greenhow, This, 114 U. S. 287. record." Poindexter with what was said is not Chief true, harmony v. Bank the United States, Marshall Osborn Justice " It In his that case he said: 738, may, Wheat. opinion as rule which admits no laid down think, we exception, it is where all cases that, jurisdiction party, depends record. the 11th Amend named Consequently, party the Constitu which restrains ment, jurisdiction granted to those is, of limited tion over suits necessity, amend a State is on the record. The suits which party as it if the construed effect, has its full Constitution be ment the court had the have been construed would to suits extended never been brought against in another State aliens." And citizens of point deliver was stated Mr. volved in that case Justice Swayne, court in Wall. Davis Gray, ing opinion " who are to the suit follows: deciding parties *37 TERM, 1887. Opinion of the Court. a state the record. officer court not look will beyond Making a her law a does not make party, although party and the State stand behind have his action may may prompted A State can be made a him the in interest. real party party with view, the bill where only by expressly shaping in intended to are rela individuals be put corporations But what was said Chief Justice Marshall tion to the case." the United must be taken States, Osbornv. Bank supra, he context, connection with its immediate wherein adds (page " on the record, The State not a and the 858): being party court over those who are on the jurisdiction parties having the true is not one of but whether, record, jurisdiction, question its to make a the exercise of court jurisdiction, ought defendants; decree whether be con a real or as nominal interest, sidered as being only having This that where the defend intimation, conveys parties." ants who are sued as officers of the but State, real, have not nominal interest the State merely controversy, appear to be the real defendant, therefore ing indispensable if the does not fail want over party, power it does as to the nominal fail, for want parties, defendants, of a suitable matter. subject indeed, seems to be
This, interpretation put upon Chief Justice Marshall himself in the language by opinion him in delivered the case of The court, Governor Madrazo, 110, 123, Pet. 124. After Georgia quoting from the the case of Bank Osborn v. paragraphs opinion extracted, the United above Chief Justice mentioned case of 2 Dall. where the action Georgia Brailsford, was not the name of the but was brought by " behalf, Governor and added: If, the State therefore, as a in that considered properly party " in this." He further considered as a said: The claim party is as the Governor he is not sued, his upon governor; but his title. The demand made him is not name, made but The decree is personally, officially. pronounced, but the to have been officer, person, appears the successor of the defendant; pronounced against original *38 RE AYERS.
IN
Opinion of the Court. . executed a different was as the bond by governor appeal a the case, In such where him the information. who filed his but sued, name, a is not by of State by chief magistrate him is entirely the claim made office, his and style upon be consid itself we think the State may his official character, not a the is on the record. If State ered as a party, party made. No a decree can be no whom there is party against court before the natural is his brought person capacity that the State in that held, defendant." It was therefore to the suit, defendant form, was in fact, party though had no the Circuit Court that, jurisdiction consequently, also Ex pronounce the decree from. See parte appealed this Pet. was reiterated Madrazzo, Juan This view it 24 How. where was 66, 98, court in v. Dennison, Kentucky " said to be that where the State is settled, party, plaintiff defendant, the suit State, or the Governor the represents the in behalf of be, in a suit him as Governor form, he must be summoned the where State State, plaintiff, the where State, as the officer representing notified v. Macon is defendant." Cunningham Accordingly, it was decided that 109 U. S. Co., & Brunswick Railroad the record that a cases where it is seen those clearly upon court, an to enable the State is according indispensable party the relief to the rules which grant govern procedure, inference is, it will refuse to take jurisdiction. sought, that record, it the face of manifest, that where have no individual interest controversy, defendants in their official and that relief them is sought against alone is to be State, capacity representatives then affected or decree, arising, judgment question the State, suit is not a suit whether the substantially is one jurisdiction. New cases of was Hamp
The very question presented 108 U. S. 76. Louisiana, York shire v. Louisiana New the record the face of In each of those cases there was upon which, according between two nominally controversy the Constitution, judicial was subject terms could be determined far as of the United States. So power ' TERM, 1887. 4:90
Opinion of the Court. named in reference to the were record, suits parties of this but, within the court; examination it cases as stated pleadings, appeared which was not for was its own use and plaintiff, suing, but use and on behalf of certain interest, for the individual who had their thereof, citizens transferred claims to the State It for the suit. held purposes accordingly unanimously court, would look behind the nom through inal on the to ascertain who were the real parties record, Chief Justice, the suit. The for the court parties speaking *39 in that made a review the led to which circumstances the of the 11th and, his adoption Amendment, concluding evident "The of the so amendment, opinion, said: purpose and was to all proposed finally promptly adopted, prohibit suits a or for citizens of States, or other by State without consent of the to aliens, and, the State sued; a our one cannot create with an State opinion, controversy other that term State, within the as used in the meaning of the the Constitution, clauses judicial by assuming prosecu s tion of debts the other State it citizens. Such by owing the satisfied that we are case, we are both being prohibited, letter and the of the Constitution, from enter by spirit these and bill each case is suits, dismissed." taining p. converse The of that case is to found in Hagood U. Southern, 117 S. 52. State of There, South Caro lina, which in interest, was not party nominally The nominal defendants were the defendant. Treasurer of State of South its Carolina, and General, Comptroller treasurers its various counties and their successors office. the bills was to behalf obtain of the com object the State of by plainants, judicial redemption process, by which holders, were scrip they certain according terms of statute in it of which was issued, pursuance collection, and of a tax levy, appropriation special pledged claimed, law, consti purpose, irrepealable a contract from violation the Constitution tuting protected of the United States. The decrees of Circuit Court granting relief were reversed, and the cause with remanded,
IN RE AYERS.
Opinion of the Court. instructions to dismiss the on the that the bills, suits, ground the officersof the State, were though nominally against really the State itself. this court said opinion (page "These suits described as bills for the 67): accurately a contract between specific performance complainants and the State of South who are the Carolina, only parties it. But to these bills the is not in name made a party is to it to become such if it defendant, leave given though it chooses; with could not be and, consent, except brought before the court And and be made to defend. appear it is the actual to the contract, the yet party alleged perform ance of which is the one decreed; required perform and the it whom can be decree; only party by performed. to the the real record, Though nominally party in interest, the nominal defendants only party being officers no interest agents having personal matter of the suit, subject defending only repre the State. And the the decrees to senting things required by be done and them are the which, performed by very things when done and constitute a performed, performance contract the State. The State is not the real alleged but the real party controversy, party against relief suit, is, the suit substan sought therefore, within the of the 11th tially Amendment to the prohibition *40 Constitution of the United States."
The conclusions in the case of v. Southern were Hagood what had been justified by decided this court previously in the cases of Louisiana v. Jumel and Elliott v. Wiltz, 107 U. S. 711. Those cases had for their one, object, by injunc to restrain the tion, officers of the State from the executing of the act of the General in provisions to be Assembly alleged violation of the contract of the and the other, rights plaintiffs, mandamus, the of require appropriation money the of the State in accordance treasury with the contract. it This relief, was not within decided, the of competency the The Chief Justice on judicial that power. said, point " The in order 727): to be (page remedy sought, complete, the court to assume all the executive would require authority TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. this far it related to the enforcement of of so as State, the of all with the conduct law, and persons supervise charged in to the and dis collection, official duty levy, any respect until the bonds, the tax bursement of question principal and in a full; that, too, were interest, proceeding paid was not and could not State, the as a be made to show that needs no the It argument political party. of its be thus ousted the jurisdiction cannot judici power When a State submits without itself, set in its ary place. case, of a court in a to the reservation, jurisdiction particular full effect to what the that be used may give jurisdiction act allowed to be submission, done; its of State has, by officers to coercion of enforce if law permits public then coercion rendered, that be any may judgment But this is for that far from very purpose. employed when State cannot to set sued, courts, authorizing the officers in over charge public up as to control them so political power, moneys, finances of the State." of the their administration conclusive It hot therefore, is, principal question named is not as a that State of Virginia party it the actual the sense of the Whether defendant. party, must be determined Constitution, con- prohibition case whole of the nature sideration presented record. are, 1st, of the bill that the com- averments
The substantial $100,000 worth tax-receivable were owners plainants over ; for which had $30,000 paid coupons Yirginia, sold of that amount for $50,000 $15,000 have 2d, that they who have tendered the same more to Yirginia, tax-payers of their but that taxes, state officials -payment proper receive the same that if the ; 3d, have refused to said officers to enforce the act of the State are officers of May permitted will be unable to sell 12,1887, remaining complainants State at their $50,000 tax-payers in the same will be de- thus their entire property price, act of unconstitutional 12, 1887, ; 4th, May stroyed because contract void, impairs obligation *41 IN EE AYEES.
Opinion of the Court. which it the State receive' Virginia agreed coupons in its bonds cut from debts, demands, taxes payment it. due to
The in which this contract is to be vio particulars alleged lated of that act are, that, first, provisions disregard of tenders tax-receivable made coupons by_tax-payers taxes, the act of the General payment Assembly perempto at actions law to be in the name of the rily requires brought State of all such Virginia against tax-payers delinquent; because in the trial of such it actions that second, required shall not the defendant the'fact of but the .tender, only prove of the that as tendered; third, genuineness coupons part he is that the bond itself from which proof required produce is said such tó have been fourth, that he is cut; and, coupon to introduce permitted expert testimony prove genu of the tendered. ineness of the bill is, coupons prayer General of the State of and the Com Attorney Virginia, for the monwealth’s be restrained in counties, attorneys suits under junction commencing prosecuting any 12, the act of for the of taxes 1887, May recovery against par to be but ties who fact have tendered alleged delinquent, tax-receivable of taxes due. coupons payment to be noted there is It is no averment in the direct orig- amended bills that inal or been have coupons alleged tendered taxes those payment tax-payers against' defendants whom the threatened to suits under the act bring 12, were from the 1887, May purchased complainants, otherwise the record incidentally appears although them that some of have been. The however, injunction, for is to suits under that prayed prevent bringing any who have act tendered whether tax-payers coupons, were from the or not. coupons purchased complainants It is also to observed that act on the only personal to be restrained part petitioners sought original 6, order of June 1887, bill, pursuance prayer is the suit under the act of bringing May who had tendered any person tax-receivable due suit, of taxes to the State of payment Virginia. Any *42 TERM, 1887. áH Opinion the Court. in be the name of the statute, the must, brought use. for its in our consider the matters immaterial,
It is opinion, the course and conduct of such which alleged respect reason of the contained institution, its provisions suit after a of the of the General acts Assembly other restricting of the of the tendered. coupons the mode genuineness proof act of is “If 12, 1887, that, What the the is May required a of the defendant tender of relies coupons payment and in the same writ he claimed, taxes shall specifically plead therein to the the averred have and file with coupons plea ing, clerk shall and the them. tendered, carefully been preserve the tender filed the burden of such proving Upon plea the the shall be on defendant. If the coupons genuineness of the be established, the tender and the coupons genuineness on the of tender. In for the defendant shall be plea judgment ‘ shall write the word and there the clerk such case proved/ of the in his official across face character, under his name with a certificate of the them, and transmit together coupons, to the auditor of case, been court that have proven they shall deliver the to the second Avho accounts, public check of the auditor therefor the second auditor, receiving he into the which check shall treasurer, treasury pay upon tax account.” to the credit of proper at all State to If a suit be rightfully may brought a there is taxes, a such certainly, recover judgment violates or contract these any legal nothing provisions action on If he defends the sued. ground right party he course, must, lawful tender payment, plead into be court tender, required bring rightfully made. Under the issue to have been tender upon alleged truth burden defendant is proving plea and kind of What shall be amount proof allegations. the defence of law establish involves questions necessary the trial. and decided the course of be raised can only trial is to be court for the where Their determination pursuance of other acts of the General .If, Assembly, had. of the defendant, ha\dng contract tax-payer rights
IN RE AYERS.
Opinion of the Court. tendered tax-receivable are denied to bim in that trial, coupons, reason of requirements nature regard and'quantity as to the of the of law proof the errors genuineness coupons, thus committed can be remedied, to the com according mon course of judicial writ of error, which, proceedings, by as it would a Federal present question, might ultimately sued out in this court. not to in advance, assumed But either, will if arise, questions that, arise, they will be decided. The therefore, is erroneously question, narrowed to single inquiry equitable right *43 to the complainants enjoin petitioners against bringing any such suits at all.
It seems in that the of tax- supposed argument, right in who have tendered payers Virginia, tax-receivable coupons in of their taxes to the officer, be payment proper collecting forever free thereafter from suit the State to recover judg ment for such rests the taxes, that such a upon proposition tender is in law so as to taxes, all payment extinguish claim for them on the of the State. This part proposition, to be is said the indeed, of certain lan justified by authority in of the in the case of opinion court Poindexter guage 114 U. S. 270. In that case the a tender Greenhow, effect of taxes of act of the collector payment subsequent was considered seizing personal property tax-payer but there is in the decided, which counte nothing opinion nances the idea that such a tender was a the taxes, payment all claim so as of the State therefor. extinguish subsequent Its effect was defined statement precisely following " His as tender, we have seen, (page 299): already equiv alent to so as all concerns subse payment, legality far the collector to distraint steps by quent payment by enforce There is his to indicate that property." nothing opinion the tender was relieved from the party making operation law, of the rule of it the tender making necessary keep or that at action law for the subsequent recovery good, taxes would be in such a unlawful, course, reserving, admitted fact of of the defendant to right plead his tender into court, bring usual pursuance cases, a defence. practice TERM,
Opinion of tho Court. It in the follows, therefore, ease, that present the personal act of the to be restrained petitioners sought the order of the Circuit reduced to the Court, mere of an bringing action in the name of and for State against who, tax-payers, have tendered although they may tax-receivable coupons, cannot charged delinquents, them as an alleged against individual act in violation of or contract any legal rights such tax-payers.
Much more difficult is it to conceive that it constitutes a of which the grievance suit complainants have principal No suits any legal right complain. complain ants themselves are and their apprehended, interest pecuniary in the actions threatened who have against tax-payers, made tenders tax-receivable with coupons purchased them, their loss guaranty against thereof, collateral consequence and remote. The of such actions is no breach of bringing contract between the and the subsisting State of complainants All under the contract Virginia. contained in rights with when coupons they transferred them parted to tax they If the have in that payers. transfer complainants agreed shall be received the State in payment taxes, that is a contact between the and the complainants their tax-payer, to which the State is not a It is one the com assignee, party. have into, and for entered plainants voluntarily *44 State cannot be held responsible.
In that
the case
not differ in
.does
aspect,
principle
These to in however, are adverted this con- considerations,
IN RE AYERS. 497 Opinion oí the Court. not so much for the
nection, that the sub- purpose showing the bill stance of a case the matter of presents subject is not within of the court, as to show that it jurisdiction not' does relief allege any grounds equitable against individual defendants for committed or any personal wrong threatened them. It does not them their by charge against individual character done or threatened which con- anything stitutes, law, violation of contemplation personal or a breach of contract to which property are rights, parties.
The relief the defendants, not in their sought but in their individual, as officers of representative capacity the State The acts to be restrained are Virginia. sought of suits the State of its own bringing name Virginia and for its own use. If the had State been made a defendant to this bill name, charged according allegations now that such a suit could be maintained supposing contains — — it would have been to the subjected court served its Governor and by process upon Attorney General, to the in such cases. New according precedents v. New York, Pet. Jersey 284, 288, 290; Kentucky Dennison, How. Rule 5 66, 96, 97; of 1884, 108 U. S. 574. If a decree could have been rendered the State from enjoining suits its it would have bringing tax-payers, operated the State the officers who through law were it in such suits, required represent viz., the bringing present its defendants, General, Attorney the Commonwealth's several counties. For a breach attorneys of such an these officers would be amenable to the court injunction, as of its and would be proceeding contempt authority, liable therefor attachment and punishment imprisonment. nature of the is identical with supposed, that of the case with bill, actually presented ex single the State not named as a How else ception defendant. forbidden, can the by judicial actions process bring in its name, conduct of its except constraining officers, if and its ? And all attor attorneys, agents officers, personally subjected neys, agents process
vol. cxxxn —32 TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. so as to forbid their court, its behalf, how can it be acting said that itself the State is not to the jurisdiction of subjected the court ? as an actual and real defendant
It that is, insisted it is however, within upon argument the Circuit the United Court of States jurisdiction restrain officers of from the States by injunction executing of state void statutes, reason provisions repugnancy States; the Constitution of the United that there are many that has been precedents exercised under court; the sanction of this and that the case is covered present their authority. relied to maintain this authority principal upon propo t sition is of this court in the case of Osborn judgmen Bank 9 Wheat. As strengthening that based our attention is decision, called argument upon counsel to a of the case which it is said feature does not clearly from Mr. the official Wheaton. The appear report by original record of shows that after the case out bill, setting substance Ohio of the act the Legislature complained of , Osborn, State, that Auditor of the the officer alleged whom the execution the statute the State was upon " it out in that he will execute enjoined, daily speeches gives of the said act of Ohio and enforce the provisions your " orators." And it of the bill part prayer stay Osborn, aforesaid, said auditor as and all others enjoin Ralph whom concern from anywise, may proceeding against orators under and in virtue of the act Ohio aforesaid, your or or thereof." It also section, any provision part, appears that it decree of the was Circuit from which Court, part " that the defendants and each of appeal prosecuted, them be from to collect perpetually enjoined proceeding accrue, which has accrued hereafter tax, the com act of the under the General Ohio in Assembly plainants the bill and mentioned." But act of the proceedings Leg islature of declared be unconstitutional and void in Ohio, its sole had for collection of levy purpose an annual tax of each office of discount $50,000 within of the Bank United States deposit
IN RE AYERS.
Opinion of the Court. in case of refusal to the of collected, pay, by Auditor the a bank notes, other and levy upon money, goods the of to bank, the seize it chattels, which was made property under the warrant of the lawful, for the auditor, to person whom it to the directed, was enter bank for the of purpose and the same. The seizing satisfy finding property wrong of and to be the complained sought prevented by injunction for was threatened seizure of the prayed of the property bank. An actual thereof, seizure violation of the injunc as a of tion, was the which court, the contempt treated were final attached, the decree of the Circuit parties the Court restored taken the property the possession of the case in this the court, complainant. disposing opin ion of Chief Justice Marshall concludes as follows, 9 Wheat. 871: "We think then that is no there error in the decree of Ohio, the for the Circuit Court District as it so far directs restitution of the sum of which taken $98,000, was out of specific the bank in the was the defendant unlawfully possession Samuel when the Sullivan awarded injunction Septem him from ber, 1820, restrain it inor man paying away, ner and so far as it it, directs the of the using remain payment sum of the defendants $2000 Osborn and ing John Ralph L. that the but same is erroneous so far as Harper; respects the the coin, interest on of the said it part $98,000, the being of this court the while opinion were restrained parties of the Circuit Court from authority using they ought not to be with interest. The decree Circuit charged Court for the sums District Ohio is affirmed as to said $2000, $98,000 and as reversed to the residue."
The mandate this court was in accordance with the terms of this judgment. cause,
There is in the therefore, nothing, judgment which defined, extends finally authority beyond pre- vention and restraint of the act done in specific pursuance unconstitutional statute of and in Ohio, violation of the act of bank, consisted of the Congress chartering unlaw- ful seizure and detention of its It was conceded property. that case, at throughout the bar argument TERM, 1887.
Opinion Court. at would either of lie, that an action law court, opinion the defendants individual tres- or detinue, against trespass com- of wrong property guilty taking passers defend themselves under vainly seeking illegally, plainant of a act of General Ohio. void Assembly authority in the case was whether ofOne questions equity principal restrain commission such mere had 'jurisdiction which was the circum- upheld trespass, which has been stances and nature of repeatedly on which it was ad- exercised since. very ground But *47 a and not to be in State, not be suit the one to against judged a was that the necessary the was defend- State party, which were and individually wrongdoers,- ants against personally a of had clear action for the the right whom complainants or value, and that therefore taken, recovery property no were in which other The a case parties necessary. was relief asked were the and the defendants asserted right to themselves as individuals. They protect sought character as their official liability by representatives personal were to the do, of This because the State. they permitted to act was under which void. authority they professed In of case of principles adjudged pursuance it has States, been Bank United supra, Osborn of this court that an held uniformly injunction repeatedly to the collection of taxes to be col will lie restrain sought of name seizures lected by imposed property States, to the of the United but Constitution contrary State, officers the State the defendants being threatening of. The of this grounds distraint complained v. Baltimore & 114 Co., Allen Ohio Railroad were stated in all The vital is that the cases U. S. 311. principle to act as the State, officersof defendants, though professing a or violation of are threatening personal property rights for which individ personally complainant, stated in the liable. This plainly opinion ually principle S. court Poindexter U. Greenhow, " is The case then of the below 282): plaintiff follows (page tax a to had him this: He reduced demanded paid IN RE AYERS. Opinion the Court. The defendant had no tender. law there
lawful authority to enforce other his to after attempt payment by seizing so he ceased to be an officer of the law, doing property. a It is the became case wrongdoer. private simple has defendant, natural private person, unlawfully arms seized, taken, force and and detained the with personal " another." It was also stated 288): property (page in this class ratio decidendi of cases is A defend very plain. sued as who seeks to State in ant substitute the wrongdoer, or his justify by place, authority on the defend has act his ground adopted and exonerated cannot rest on the bare assertion of his him, He bound defence. to establish it. The State is a political can act and can com body, corporate only through agents, mand laws. It therefore, for such only by necessary, defendant, order his a law defence, complete produce State which constitutes his commission as its agent, for his act. a warrant This the defendant case present undertook do." The under which the defendant legislation declared to be null and void as to the being justified contrary Constitution of the left him therefore defence to answer less, act subject his consequences personal seizure and detention of the plaintiff's property, *48 for the occasioned responsible damages thereby.
This
is
and
illustrated
principle
enforced
the case
by
Lee,
United States v.
Opinion Court. overruled. The action has been sustained in those in- only stances the act of, where considered from complained apart the official as its and as the authority justification, alleged of the act individual constituted defendant, a viola- personal tion of for which the was entitled to a right plaintiff remedy at law or in in his individual equity against wrongdoer character. case stands present different. upon footing altogether that is on the all claimed of the part
Admitting complainants its., as to the contract on the breach the State of part acts its General referred to in Virginia by Assembly the bill there nevertheless no foundation in complaint, law for relief asked. For a breach of contract by it no suit is conceded there is State, remedy by against State This results the 11th itself. Amendment to the which secures to the State Constitution, from suit immunity individual citizens of other States or aliens. This immu direct actions for includes for the nity damages contract breach of the the State brought name, against all other actions and suits at it, but whether or in law against A for the bill of the equity. equity specific performance it is name, contract admitted could not against S. be U. it Southern, brought. Hagood in such a decided that where the State was not bill, nominally its officers and record, party brought agents, no interest in the matter of the suit, personal subject having where “the defending only representing decree be done and required performed by things which, them are the when done very things performed, constitute a contract the State,” performance alleged' without the court was because a suit it was jurisdiction, a State.
The converse of that true, must proposition equally because is contained it; is, bill, which object by injunction, indirectly, compel performance specific all contract, those acts and by forbidding doings contract, constitute breaches must also, necessarily, *49 a suit such the State. In a State be against though
IN RE AYERS. Opinion o£ the Court. if defendants are its on the record, a
not nominally party can act in alone it whom doing officers through agents, a breach of its to do the constitute refusing things not in a suit is form, contract, still, substance, though is character the State. Such suit precise against in which the in the Circuit Court suit against petitioners which constitutes the con- violation of made, order was been to the have committed which they imprison- tempt seek these writs. ment from which they delivery by so what is the true of distinction, It be asked may ground of the United States as the of the Constitution far protection of the between the contract invoked, complainant is rights In and of other suit, a property. rights person said that exercised latter cases is these jurisdiction individual, the official defendants, notwithstanding against their acts, while cases former descrip- character is denied. tion is The acts obvious. distinction, however,
The alleged defendants, bill as threatened peti present contract of the assumed between are violations tioners, as and the State complainants, Virginia to be the acts considered Virginia. contract, to that individuals, as
defendants, being parties a breach of it. There in law of are not capable committing actual or contract, for a of a no breach apprehended, is remedy and between those who are itself, contract except upon in certain parties it. certain sense and ways lawby contracts States of the United the Constitution protects their obligation, a State laws of passed impairing subsequently to contracts as is extending this recognized provision this, but State; apparent, between individual other constitutional equal authority, subject principle, Amendment, which to the State secures in the 11th contained arises in a from suit. Wherever question an immunity not involve a does suit individuals, which between litigation will be State, the contract recognized judicially law of the force, any subsequent notwithstanding binding But is incidental right obligation. State impairing *50 504 TERM,
Opinion of the Court. the the course of which the judicial proceeding question it It arises. not a substantive concerning positive right of an absolute secured the character, Constitution of the by United States or infraction, for every against possible redress is to the contract itself, given against strangers the of acts or done omitted injurious them. consequences by it held in Carter v. 114 S. Greenhow, U. 317, Accordingly, that no direct action for the denial of the secured right by contract, other than the contract would lie under itself, upon of the statutes of the United States any provisions authorizing actions to redress the under color of state law, of deprivation, or the secured Constitution any right, privilege, immunity by the United States. In that case it was said (page 322): " How, and are what these secured to him sense, rights by the Constitution of the United States ? The answer the is, by I, 10, of Article which forbids State provision any to pass § laws the of contracts. That constitu impairing obligation tional so far as it can be said to confer provision, or upon secure to individual so any does indi person any rights, It forbids the rectly incidentally. the States by passage of laws such as nevertheless, are described. If are, such any the a State, passed by legislature they unconstitutional and void. judicial vindicate any proceeding necessary his under a contract affected rights by legislation, has individual to have a determination declar right judicial ing nullity This attempt impair obligation. is the secured him that clause only right Consti by tution." But where the contract is between individual and the State, no action will lie State, against action founded defendants who are officers of State, of which is to enforce its object specific per formance those be done compelling things defendants when which, done, would constitute performance State, or to forbid the of those if doing which, things would be done, breaches of the contract merely is in substance a suit itself, equally within the of the Constitution. prohibition
It cannot doubted that the 11th Amendment to the Con
IN RE AYERS.
Opinion of tile Court.
distinction between
create an
important
stitution operates
between
individuals
contracts
with
of a State
contracts
individ
In the case of contracts between
individual parties.
breach,
for their enforcement
existence
remedies
uals,
are a
into,
were entered
at
time
part
agree
substantial
of its
and constitute a
ment itself,
part
obligation.
U.S.203. That
Orleans,
v. New
Louisiana
obligation,
I,
Constitu
Article
virtue
provision
§
cannot
subse
tion of the
impaired by any
*51
e
and
Thus, not
the covenants
only
stat
legislation.
quent
are
but also
of the contract
the sub
conditions
preserved,
remedies
its
It
is
enforcement.
stance of the original
individuals and a State.
In
with contracts between
different
11th
virtue of the
Amendment
to
to these, by
respect
the
the
no
a suit
there
Constitution,
remedy by
against
being
without sanction,
the contract
State,
substantially
except
out
honor
faith of the
and
State
that which arises
good
are
to coercion.
and these
not subject
itself,
Although
of
have
contract,
at the
consented
State
inception
may,
subsequently
to
it
conditions to
itself
suit,
one of its
subject
that
its
immu
consent and resume
hdraw
original
wit
nity,
of
of its
violation
contract
without
obligation
20
Arkansas,
sense. Beers v.
How. 527;
constitutional
101
S. 337. The
Tennessee,
Co.
U.
Railroad
very object
to
the 11th Amendment were
and
of
prevent
purpose
a State
the coercive
of
of
process
subjecting
indignity
at
of
was
tribunal
the instance
It
private parties.
judicial
nor convenient
that
to be neither becoming
thought
Union,
with
States of the
invested
that
residuum
several
large
which had not been
to the
of
delegated
sovereignty
be summoned as defendants to answer the com
should
whether citizens of other
or
States
plaints
private persons,
that the
of their
and
admin
or
course
aliens,
policy
public
affairs
to and controlled
their
should
subject
public
istration
tribunals without
their
b
the mandates
y
judicial
To secure the
and in favor of individual interests.
consent,
manifest
the constitutional
guaranteed
exemption
purposes
it
11th Amendment
should be
by
requires
interpreted,
TERM,
Opinion of the Court.
not
and too
but
and with such breadth
literally
narrowly,
fairly,
the substance of its
effectually
largeness
accomplish
In this
it must be held to
suits
cover,
purpose.
spirit
only
but
those also
name,
brought against
against
where the
officers,
State,
agents,
representatives,
though
not named as
real
such, is, nevertheless,
party against
which alone in fact the relief is
asked,
which the
against
or decree
judgment
operates.
effectively
But this is not intended in
any way
impinge upon
suits
defendants,
individual
principle
justifies
under
who,
color of the
unconstitutional
authority
legisla
tion
State,
guilty
personal trespasses
wrongs,
nor
forbid suits
officers in their official
capacity
either to arrest or direct their official action
or
by injunction
such suits are authorized
mandamus, where
law,
act to be
ministerial,
done
omitted
purely
perform
ance or omission of which the
has
interest.
plaintiff
legal
latter
class
we
what
cases,
respect
repeat
said
this court
v. McComb,
Board
Liquidation
"
U. S.
541: A
without its
cannot
consent,
be sued
court
and a
cannot
individual;
substitute its own dis
executive
cretion for
matters
officers
belonging
latter. But
has been well
proper jurisdiction
*52
when
official
settled, that,
no
plain
duty,
exercise
requiring
of
to be
discretion,
and
refused,
performed,
performance
who will sustain
such
any person
refusal
personal injury by
have a mandamus to
its
and
may
when
compel
performance;
such
is threatened to be violated
some
duty
official
positive
who will sustain
act,
person
any
personal
for
injury thereby,
cannot
which
be had at
compensation
adequate
law,
have
may
an
it.
cases,
the
injunction
prevent
writs of man
damus
somewhat correlative to each
injunction
other.
if
officer
In either
the
case,
the
of
plead
uncon
authority
an
law
stitutional
for
or violation of his
non-performance
it will not
the writ. An unconsti
duty,
prevent
issuing of
tutional law
treated
will be
the courts as null and void."
An
and illustration of this class will be found
example
Seibert
2
Lewis,
IN RE AUERS.
Opinion of the Court. it be construction of need Nor apprehended in this will embar- Amendment, applied anywise 11th States, the execution of laws the United or obstruct rass of a State are violation officers m cases where guilty acting its The color of them under authority. government with all laws, in the enforcement of its deals States, United territorial as individuals its jurisdiction, owing within persons The of disobedience to its may obedience authority. penalties to the character in which them, without be visited regard or the nature of the act, assume they exemption they can be between Nothing interposed justification. plead he owes to the and the Constitution individual obligation States, him or defend which can shield the United laws of and the extent and limits of from their authority, just means of States, United authority government there- If, for itself. applies power, interprets judicial under the assumed fore, individual, authority acting officers, color of its comes hvws, of its and under as one th<j of a valid law of the with authority into conflict superior character, of his he is representative United stripped in his to the of his individ- person consequences subjected State has no to him The ual conduct. power impart supreme authority immunity responsibility States. to these classes of for the reasons cases, In contradistinction the suit and Others we Cooper Ma/rye adjudge given, were in which the Others, injunctions granted against and in law a suit to be substance petitioners, present therefore, It within the is, prohibition Virginia.. the terms lltli Amendment to Constitution. By it is a case to which the judicial power of that provision, The Court does not extend. Circuit States the United it. All the to entei’tain without proceedings jurisdiction it assumed are null and which the exercise suits, . orders bring void. forbidding petitioners were of its contempt adjudged bringing *53 The orders no make. it had power adjudging authority, TERM, 1887. Field, Opinion: Concurring J. in were their void,
them and contempt equally imprisonment of It is without law. therefore authority
Ordered that the petitioners discharged. Mr. Justice Field concurring.
I concur from arrest and im judgment discharging General and other officers prisonment Attorney Virginia, who were the Circuit Court to be adjudged by to' the order of court that guilty obey contempt refusing in the case of v. and were fined, committed Cooper Marye, until the fine should be should them paid, purge . selves their the acts commanded I also contempt by doing concur the main- stated in the court, position opinion which the petitioners is.ordered; discharge namely: case of was in law fact a suit Cooper Marye of a state the State of To subjects foreign Virginia. a suit of that character the of the United States judicial power cannot, the Eleventh of the Constitution, be Amendment. extended. The suit was to object enjoin Attorney General and the Commonwealth’s several attorneys counties, and towns cities, from suits Virginia bringing any name of the Commonwealth to enforce the collection of for the taxes, attached payment coupons originally to her bonds been had tendered. To officers enjoin with the Commonwealth,- charged supervision manage ment of in her behalf, suits in legal from proceedings bringing name, her less than to nothing enjoin Commonwealth, for her can officers such suits be instituted and prose cuted. This seems to me an obvious conclusion. reason
The the bill given Cooper Marye, seeking is that the State has various. acts creat- injunction, passed in-the of holders of ing impediments way coupons establishing their which their value will be genuineness, by practically evaded, these destroyed, performance obligations unless the of the State are officers restrained from prosecuting such suits. numerous devices to which the State has resorted order her under the escape obligations *54 n 509 EE
IN AYEES. Field, Opinion: Concurring J. m?v., it is true, of law embarrass seriously coupon
forms asgvHion of his but that is not a suffi- in the claims; holder to for to the State the reason cient denying right prosecute taxes in her own If the for courts. obstacles to her demands of the claims of the holder, the maintenance coupon presented are and the State Constitution repugnant legislation, we assume in the United cannot advance that laws of be sustained courts when the will Virginia they are in the suits and for mentioned, tendered produced to her a there her own de- reason hearing deny should be be sustained, mands. If found they remedy may decisions in with the tribunal, where conflict Constitu- in this and cor- laws of United States reviewed tion and may rected. — are occur indeed, are cases There frequent many they officers of the State, rence —where acting.under legislation s — and laws the United with the Constitution State conflict the Federal as where those offi courts, be restrained by virtue of to take cers private attempt, legislation, or in use without offering compensation, public property to one of the use of his other enjoyment ways deprive I do not understand that the of the court opinion property. on the doctrine; but, contrary, recog There is a wide difference between nized approved. in such officers of State from cases interfering restraining them from citizen, with restraining property name of the State in her own courts a suit prosecuting courts are at all times as claim. Her collect an open alleged of her demands as for the to her open prosecution of their claims. for the her citizens prosecution make this concurrence however, I, special opinion in it because of approval language expressing majority Jumel, taken the court Louisiana positions — with the I dissented majority from agreeing of that or the statement of the either in object that case to it. U.S.7 I considered 107 law applicable she to do what officers of compel brought and former constitution consented they might her laws had by TERM, 1887. J, Harlan, Opinion:
Dissenting do. I at expressed, tribunals required judicial conviction of court, my the time, majority the ordinance unconstitutionality repu the invalidity of Louisiana. At new constitution in the diation embodied in Antoni v. also Greenhow my time I the same expressed invalid Virginia. legislation equally opinion in those cases, I adhere my dissenting opinions U. S. 784. in this case I do not in any judgment concurring said. I there what depart qualify respect *55 Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting. inme Louisiana v. to the views I adhere expressed
As Greenhow, 801; U. S. Jumel, 107 U. S. Antoni 107 746; v. Brunswick v. & Railroad Macon Cunningham Company, and as I concurred in 109 U. S. 458; judgments Poin and Allen v. 114 U. S. v. Greenhow, dexter & Baltimore 114 I U. S. feel Ohio Railroad to dis Company, obliged from the these cases. sent opinion judgment &c., v. Circuit Marye, Cooper cannot be so far as it Court questioned, depends upon for the are or citizenship parties; plaintiffs subjects defendants, of Great and the Britain, citizens are citizens of Virginia. holders, Whether cou plaintiffs merely Virginia in that and not Commonwealth, tax-payers have pons, any of the refusal reason of her ground complaint, legal officers when like tendered, to which the accept, sold or to to be used in meet tax-payers plaintiffs transferred their whether the statutes under taxes; which those ing .offi o or intend t cers proceed, proceeded, repugnant United States, and, therefore, void; Constitution n n whether the should or preliminary injunctio questio not have been refused should that such upon ground have a la w, at tax-payers complete adequate remedy whether the conflicts between the courts necessity avoiding of the United States and officers of a State, acting statutes, obedience to her was not reason for ample refusing RE
IN AYERS. Harlan, Opinion:
Dissenting J. be or whether an officer grant injunction; ought in behalf of the suit enjoined public— merely bringing in suit not therein, itself or before necessarily, judgment an of the defendant invasion of property rights volving all Court, therein —are matters the Circuit sitting the final was to determine competent upon hearing equity, for are not con c&e. Those Cooper Manye, open questions final from the decree sideration here except upon appeal I am in that not at now case; liberty express consequently, as to opinion them. is, to be whether now made Cooper only inquiry is a suit within meaning Marye against Virginia States. of the United 11th Amendment the Constitution it If I that must be, discharged; prisoners agree does not extend suits the United States judicial power citizens of another subjects . countries foreign of that character. I a suit
But am opinion v. United States what I stand Osborn adjudged Marshall, at Chief Justice Bank, Wheat. speak page think, "It we for the court said: may, ing that in all down a rule laid which admits no exception, *56 it is the cases where the party on depends party, jurisdiction Amendment, the 11th in the record. named Consequently, the the Constitution restrains which by jurisdiction granted to those suits over suits limited is, States, necessity, against amendment The in which a State is on the record. a party effect, as it would has its full be construed if the Constitution court never have been had the construed, jurisdiction the citizens a State been to suits extended brought against aliens. being party The another the over those and the court record, having not one of is, who record, on the true question parties of its but whether, jurisdiction, the exercise jurisdiction, defendants; whether make a decree court against ought or as interest, a real being as are to be considered having they nominal parties." decisions several been These have recognized principles TÉRM, 1887. Harlari, Opinion: Dissenting J. United v. Lee court, States notably Kaufman Lee, 106 U. S. was an action That to recover a of land in Alexandria two
body County, Virginia, hundred of which acres constituted es Arlington Cemetery, previously tablished the United as a States statio and as a military n national for the soldiers and sailors of the Union. cemetery When the action was was in the actual brought cemetery of the United States as their defendants, possession offi cers. officers had no Those interest in the certainly personal result of the suit. They States, United simply represented who were the real As interest. the United States parties were not to the record, because could not be parties they made the court to a determination of the parties, proceeded case it. between the before The result was a parties judgment, that Lee had a determining legal right possession the officers of the Cemetery against Arlington States it under their control. The having authority duty of the court to the case, the United proceed notwithstanding not before court, States were was rested mainly upon decision Osborn Bank the United which with quoted, emphatic approval, following language: " If the State Ohio could have been made defend party ant, it can be denied this would scarcely be case strong that, real injunction. objection party cannot be before the cannot court, a suit be sustained brought of that ; and been cases have cited against agents party show that a court of will not amake decree chancery unless all those who are interested be made substantially parties the suit. This is true it inis certainly where the power to make them but if ; plaintiff is the parties who person real who is the true principal, person source of mischief, whose and for whose it power himself done, be advantage law, above the from all exempt judicial would process, subversive of the best established principles to say that the laws could not afford the same remedies em agent ployed doing would afford wrong *57 him could his in the suit." principal And in joined order that no one that might Osborn v. suppose Bank the United 513 RE AYERS.
IN Harlan, Opinion : Dissenting J. decisions, or overruled modified by subsequent had been
States decisions, to several Lee after referring the court the been overruled. On never decisions have "These said: Wall. 203, of Davis v. as the case Gray, as late contrary, is cited the United States with v. Bank of Osborn the case other these, as establishing among propositions: approval, ` State should be a the made concerned, the State Where cannot be done is a That it sufficient can be done. if it party, the to to do court it, may for the omission proceed reason the in all as if of the State respects the officers decree against In who to the record. a deciding parties were State party look the record. court will not the suit, beyond Making the not make State does party, although officer a state party his and the State stand action, may have her law may prompted A in interest. State can be made a a real him as party behind bill with that view, the expressly shaping only by party are intended to be or individuals corporations put where to now the case.' Though prepared say that relation ` ' the officer in all can against that the court proceed respects be taken as were a party, intimating, as if State at court the views time." ain way, general Greenhow, U.S.2 70, we In sustained a Poindexter a treasurer, individual with against charged suit by private recover certain taxes, of collecting personal property duty had seized for defendant ich non-payment wh suit. from due plaintiff taxes Virginia seizing officer tender, disregarded previously property It was contended that, State's made, coupons. earnestly did what the her statutes had the officer only had him to himself no do, interest in commanded personal him was, the suit one matter, legal effect, against the non- that a suit recover seized State; property with the statutes taxes, conformity Virginia, payment result as a direct suit the State com the same had her holder, contract with her coupon performance pel those into effect. her officer statutes carrying enjoin overruled, But this view mainly upon authority from which the court Bank Osborn eran —33 vol. *58 TERM, Harlan, Opinion:
Dissenting J. with the same as are to be found approval, quoted, passages the Lee's reference case, thereto opinion observed: " This it be observed, with language, may quoted approval in United v. Lee. States which it enunciates principle constitutes the foundation which the decision in very upon that case rested." In Poindexter's case we said that the immunity " from suit secured to the States by Constitution not does the State from the of the exempt constitutional operation prov ision that no State shall law pass impairing obliga contracts; tion of it has for, been settled that long contracts between a State and an individual are as fully protected by as Constitution contracts between two individuals. It is true, that no for a breach of its contract remedy State, by by way or means of damages compensation, by process compel its under the performance, open, Constitution, courts of the direct suit itself, State against a citizen of part injured another party, being or a citizen or of a state. But it subject foreign equally true, that in a whenever, between to a controversy suit, parties these courts have jurisdiction, arises question upon aof law a State validity of its impairing obligation contract, the is not ousted, thereby but must be ex ercised, with whatever legal consequences rights result of the determination." litigants may the same our Upon identically rests decision in grounds Allen v. Baltimore & Railroad, Ohio S.U. 311, which we maintained of that to an right company injunction the collection of taxes distraint prevent upon property after a tender of the State's tax-receivable payment of such taxes. That suit was the Auditor of Public Accounts and the Treasurer of had Virginia. They certainly no interest in the collection of the personal taxes, but were the statutes of the State which only obeying assumed to be constitutional and them. But the binding effect of that suit was the State say she should Virginia not collect her revenue in the mode proposed by statute, violate secured the Constitution thereby rights United States. In vain itwas the officers of urged by ' RE AYERS. 51o
IN Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. interest; that, real was the party Virginia them was to her officers, act enjoin could
the State State; the suit was one and that consequently enjoin of the Eleventh Amend within the the State meaning in sub contention, court overruled that This holding, ment. named as a the State stance, that, being Virginia party, her officers could to make her a party, impossible being of the railroad under from touching property prevented *59 under of United States. a statute void the Constitution decisions is: That a suit The of former result, then, against States to recover officers of United property legally their is not a suit States; possession, against that a suit officers of the State to recover neither against prop in obedience to the of them, taken statutes erty illegally nor a suit state officers to the State, brought against enjoin under the command of the State, them from taking, prop who has a tendered taxes due to coupons tax-payer erty the State within were suits her, against meaning And it of the Constitution. now is ad 11th Amendment suit before state us, the cases against judged, merely actions them from officersto bringing enjoin against tax-payers who have tendered tax-receivable is a suit previously is, State. There I a difference between grant, against decided the case of the cases heretofore v. Cooper Marye; as to but the difference is not such involve the Court, rather, to use the but, the Circuit of Chief language of its "the exercise Marshall, Justice jurisdiction." has no more Virginia Commonwealth authority of her enact statutes contracts than obligation impairing contracts statutes obligation exclusively impairing v. between individuals. New Jersey Wilson, Cranch, 7 560; 4 Bank Pet. 514, 164, 166; Providence Billings, 84; 8 Wheat. v. Biddle, Trapnall, Green 10 1, Woodruff 367; 103 v. New U. S. ; Orleans, 190, 207 How. Wolff v. Louisiana U. S. Co., New Orleans Gas Co. Light A which void, 673. statute impairing obligation affords contract, the State's no justification any one, If an officer confers no enforce such authority. proposes TERM,
' Syllabus. statute party, whose against contract is obligation to be the latter, in impaired, sought my judgment, may pro such ceed, suit, obtain officer, against thereby protec tion in his contract, rights action proposed of that officer. A view enables the State to use contrary her from suit to effect what the Constitution of the immunity United States forbids her from to enact stat doing, namely, utes of her contract. If an officer impairing obligation the State can take shelter while he immunity behind with the execution of a void enactment to the proceeds injury of the citizen's of contract, it would look as if rights declares that the Constitution of the United provision States shall be the law of land, supreme anything constitution or laws of a State to the notwithstand contrary if not most, all, had lost of its value contracts ing, respect which a State makes with individuals. officers,
I a suit that the difference between repeat, .the them from State, enjoining seizing property to' a void statute of the and a citizen, State, obedience suit such officers from under the order of the enjoining bringing which, and in her an action will name, alleged, *60 result is not a injury complainant, rights difference that but court, affects its exercise of If the former is not a suit jurisdiction. of that class. latter should not be deemed v. LOUISIANA.
SPRAUL AIN CAUSE UP BY ORIGINAL BROUGHT WRIT OF MOTION ERROR TO THE SUPREME LOUISIANA. COURT OF 5, 1887. Submitted November 1887. Decided December supersedeas by plaintiff provisions A obtained under the error of Rev. operate enjoin bring- Stat. 1007 does not in error from defendant § action, ing gen- new arising new suit on a cause of same but out of the matter, questions involving eral brought the same law which here for review.