of its debts. Nor to compel a State Banking Board and Bank Commissioner to pay bank deposits out of a depositors' guaranty fund and to enforce a claim of subrogation to securities in which the fund was invested.8 Nor to establish a claim to property held by its officers claiming a title in the State thereto; although the relief prayed is a declaration that a sale,9 or a deed in pursuance of a sale,10 is void. Nor to compel a railroad company to pay to the complainant dividends declared. upon shares of the corporate stock standing in the name of a State; nor for a receiver of such stock; nor for its sale.11 Nor to compel State officers to redeem certain certificates of State indebtedness and accept the same in payment for taxes; 12 nor it has been held, to compel a State officer to execute a trust vested by a statute in the State or in such officer, designated by his official title.18 Nor to abate a nuisance upon property belonging to the State.14 Nor to restrain the infringement in a county court house of a patent.15 Nor to a suit by a port district of Washington to enjoin the exercises of control over the tide lands within the territorial limits of the port district.16 It has been held: that a State is an indispen

7 Ibid.

8 Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, 235 U. S. 461; Farish v. State Banking Board of Okla., 235 Fed. 498. Both of these cases were decided by a majority of one in a divided court.

Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 27 L. ed. 992; (a foreclosure sale to the governor); Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 48 L. ed. 1129; (a tax sale where the auditor general was made defendant in pursuance of a State statute).

10 Sanders v. Saxton, 182 N. Y. 477, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 727, 108 Am. St. Rep. 826.

11 Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233, 33 L. ed. 589. But see Swasey v. N. C. R. Co., 1 Hughes, 17.

12 Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 29 L. ed. 805; Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, 235 U. S. 461; Farish

v. State Banking Board of Okla. 235 U. S. 498. Both of these cases were decided by a majority of one in a divided court. But see Rolston v. Chittenden, 120 U. S. 390, 30 L. ed. 721.

13 Brown University V. Rhode Island College, 56 Fed. 55. Contra, Morrill v. American Reserve Bond Co., 151 Fed. 305, (a suit to compel the State treasurer to deliver to receivers security deposited to insure policy-holders against loss). Cf. Ervien v. U. S., 251 U. S. 41, infra, § 105c.

14 Hopkins v. Clemson Agricul tural College of South Carolina, 221 U. S. 636, 55 L. ed. 890.

15 McCreery Engineering Co. v. Massachusetts Fan Co., 180 Fed.

115.

16 Port of Seattle v. Oregon & W. R. Co., 242 Fed. 986.

sable party to a suit to enjoin an express company from refusing to carry liquor into the State where the defendant contends that the State statutes forbid such transportation.17 But a State is not an indispensable party to a suit against a private individual to cancel a contract between him and that State, by which the State acquired lands of the United States through mistake or fraud.18 It seems, that a State is not an indispensable party to a stockholder's suit, to enjoin a corporation from obeying an unconstitutional State law. 19

§ 105c. Injunctions against State officers. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts in suits against officers of States is in many respects similar to their jurisdiction in suits for injunctions against officers of the United States, and the decisions in the latter cases are of assistance in the former.2

A suit may be maintained to enjoin the State Attorney General, or any prosecuting officer, or other State officer, except possibly the State governor,5 or

17 H. Clark & Sons v. Southern Express Co., 203 Fed. 580.

18 Williams v. U. S., 138 U. S. 514, 516, 34 L. ed. 1026, 1028.

19 Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 114, 46 L. ed. 92, 110; Poor v. Iowa Cent. Ry Co., 155 Fed. 226.

§ 105c. 1 Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligot, C. C. A., 259 Fed. 525, modifying 259 Fed. 321.

2 Supra, § 100.

3 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. ed. 819; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 183 U. S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92; Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 47 L. ed. 584; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 159; 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 453, 14 Ann Cases, 764; 52 L. ed. 714, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932; Hunter v. Wood, 209 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 747; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 38 L. ed. 1014; Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U. S. 342, 355. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Hadley, 161 Fed. 419;

State judges, or to enjoin a

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Julian, 169 Fed. 166. The late decisions have overruled a number of cases to the contrary. It was held in 1899: that such a suit could not be maintained in a case where the defendants were not specially charged with the excution of an unconstitutional statute, and were not, under the authority of the same, committing or about to commit some specific wrong or trespass, to the injury of the plaintiff's rights. Fitts v. Me Ghee, 172 U. S. 516, 529, 43 L. ed. 535, 541; Ball v. Rutland R. Co., 93 Fed. 513; Little v. Tanner, 208 Fed. 805; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 209 Fed. 380.

4 Herndon v. Chicago, Rock Is land & Pac. Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 135, 54 L. ed. 970; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen, 181 Fed. 710; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 209 Fed. 380.

5 Such suits have been sustained in Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L. ed.

State board, from bringing suits, whether civil or criminal, in its courts, in pursuance of a State statute, which is unconstitutional; or from enforcing such a statute; or from enforcing the order of a State board in pursuance of such a statute; or to enjoin a State railroad commission from suing to recover penalties for the violation of an order made by it, which was void as a regulation of interstate commerce. An injunction may be granted against a State officer, 10 even, it seems, a State prosecuting officer, to prevent his invasion of the rights of the complainant to property, although he acts under color of the attempted administration of a constitutional statute. Where State officers, under a statute which

13

was constitutional, denied the complainant the equal protection of the laws by an arbitrary discrimination against it, on its application for a racing license the court held, that it had jurisdiction to grant an injunction.12 To prevent irreparable injury, an injunction may be granted against a State officer, to prevent him from making a trespass by seizure of personal property in obedience to an unconstitutional State statute; even when acting under the orders of the State court in a case of which the Federal court had prior jurisdiction; 14 from infringement of the copyright of an edition of the State statutes under express legislative authority; 15 from revoking a license to transact business in the State, which has been issued to a foreign corporation,16 or from annulling the franchise of a corporation, in pursuance of an unconstitutional State statute; 17 but not, it has been held, from refusing to reissue an annual license to a foreign corporation, unless it complies with the terms of a statute which it claims is unconstitutional.18 has been held, that the State governor and the commissioner of its land office may be enjoined from the sale and delivery of patents for land, which the State has previously granted to the complainant.19 A State board has been enjoined from exchanging new State bonds for a class of bonds previously issued, as to which the statute did not authorize such an exchange.20 An injunction was granted against a State treasurer

12 Douglas Park Jockey Club v. Grainger, 146 Fed. 414.

13 Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, 41 L. ed. 648.

14 In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 37 L. ed. 689.

15 Howell v. Miller, C. C. A., 91 Fed. 129. But see supra, § 100.

16 Met. Life Ins. Co. v. McNall, 81 Fed. 888; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ludwig, 156 Fed. 152; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Swanger, 157 Fed. 783; infra, § 17 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Ludwig, 156 Fed. 152.

-.

18 Manchester Fire Ins. Co. V. Herriott, 91 Fed. 711, 716.

19 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203,

It

21 L. 447. "It is clear that in enjoining the governor of the State in the performance of one of his executive functions, the case goes to the verge of sound doctrine, if not beyond it, and that the principle should be extended no further." Miller, J., in Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 453, 27 L. ed. 992, 995. The orig. inal case was followed, however, in Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 35 L. ed. 363; s. c., 43 Fed. 196, 339. But see New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U. S. 52, supra, § 100.

20 Board of Liquidation v. MeComb, 92 U. S. 531, 28 L. ed. 623.

forbidding him from paying, to anyone but the plaintiff the income of a fund, to which the plaintiff had a contractual right.21 In two State courts, it has been held: that a taxpayer's bill can be brought to prevent the payment of money from the State treasury, under an unconstitutional law.22 An injunction may be issued to restrain a State officer from levying an illegal tax; 23 or making an illegal assessment for taxation.24 The latest authorities are to the effect that when a State statute is constitutional, a State Attorney General or other public prosecutor can not be enjoined from acting under a mistaken. construction thereof.25 It has been held: that no injunction can be issued against a State Attorney General to restrain him from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, which does not impose upon him a specific duty when he has not threatened to enforce it.26 It has been held: that a Federal court cannot enjoin either criminal or civil proceedings pending in the State court when the bill is filed.27 Nor the issue under a State statute by State officers of a certificate of nomination to a candidate for Representative in Congress. Nor to require a State officer to certify the nomination of a certain candidate for such office.28

It seems that affirmative relief will not be granted to compel a State officer to perform an act forbidden by a State statute; even if such statute is unconstitutional.29

21 President, etc., of Yale College v. Sanger, 62 Fed. 177. See Chaffraix v. Board of Liquidation, 11 Fed. 638. The United States obtained an injunction against the use by a State Land Commission of the proceeds of public lands in violation of the terms of the gift. Ervin v. U. S. 251 U. S. 41.

22 Lynn v. Polk, 76 Tenn. 121, 123, 125; Butler v. Ellerbe, 44 s. c. 256, 276, 283.

23 Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat, 738, 6 L. ed. 204; infra, §§ 151g, 271b.

24 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 113 Fed. 347; infra, §§ 151g, 271b.

25 Arbuckle v. Blackburn, C. C. A.,

113 Fed. 616, 65 L.R.A. 864; Central Consumers Co. v. Austin, 238 Fed. 616; Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligot, C. C. A., 259 Fed. 525, 529, 532, 542. See Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 169, 43 L. ed. 399.

26 Cavanaugh v. Looney, 248 U. S 453.

27 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen, 181 Fed. 710, citing U. S. R. S., $720, Comp. St. 1901, p. 581. See infra, $$ 270, 271. Scully v. Bird, 209 U. S. 481, 52 L. ed. 899. 28 Anthony v. Burrow, 129 Fed. 783.

29 Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick, R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 453, 454, 27 L. ed. 992, 994, 995; Pennoyer v.