Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/471

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 462. defendants in the action, because the latter held the property as officers and agents of the United States, and the property was appropriated to lawful public uses. This proposition, say the majority of the court through Jus- tice Miller, rests on the principle that the United States can- not be lawfully sued without its consent in an}' case, and that no action can be maintained against any individual without such consent, where the judgment must depend on the right of the United States to property held by such persons as officers or agents for the government. " The first branch of this prop- osition is conceded to be the established law of this country and of this court at the present day ; the second, as a necessary or proper deduction from the first, is denied." 1 " The doctrine [that the United States or a state cannot be sued] if not ab- solutely limited to cases in which the United States are made defendants by name, is not permitted to interfere with the judicial enforcement of the established rights of plaintiffs when the United States is not a necessary party to the suit." 2 When a citizen in a court " of competent jurisdiction has established his right to property, there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artifical, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right." 3 Then Justice Miller, after examining numerous cases, continues : " This ex- amination of the cases in this court establishes clearly this result, that the proposition that when an individual is sued in regard to property which he holds as an officer or agent of the United States, his possession cannot be disturbed when that fact is brought to the attention of the court, has been overruled and denied in every case where it has been necessary to decide it." 4 And the court added, that it made no difference that the prop- erty was devoted to a public use ; as, indeed, such an objection would be repugnant to the fifth amendment to the Constitu- tion, that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and just compensation. "Courts of justice are established, not only to decide upon the controverted rights of 1 106 u. S. 204. 2 106 U. S. 207. 8 106 U. S. 208. 4 106 U. S. 215. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204. 451