Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/212

 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Ho, 3., dissentin 209 U. 8. State to perform certain official functions on behalf of the State is a suit against the State, while an order forbidding him, as Attorney General, not to perform an official function on behalf of the State is not a uit against the State? The leacling case upon the general subject, and one very similar in many important particulars to the present one, is In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 496, 497, 505. The facts in that case were briefly these: The legislature of Virginia, in 1887, passed an act which ,holders of sundry bonds and tax-receivable coupons of that Commonwealth. alleged to be in violation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. They instituted a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States against the Attorney General and Auditor of Virginia, and against the Treasurers and Commonwealth at- torneys of counties, cities and towns in Virginia, the re v f asked being a decree enjoining and'rostraining the said state officers, and each of them, from bringing or commencing any suit provided for by the above act of 1887, or from doing any- thing to put that act into operation. The Circuit Court en- tered an order, enjoining the Attorney General of Virginia and each and all the state officers named "from bringing or commencing any suit against any person who has tendered the State of Virginia tax-roceivable coupons in payment of taxes due to said State, as provided for and directed by the act of the legislature of Virginia, approved May 12, 1887." Subse- quently the Circuit Court of the United States was informed that the Attorney General of Virginia had disobeyed its order of injunction. Thereupon that officer was ruled to show cause why he should not be fined and imprisoned. He responded to the rule, admitting that after being served with the injunction he had instituted a suit, in the state Circuit Court, against the Baltinore and Ohio Railroad Company to recover taxes due the State, and alleging "that he instituted the said suit because he was thereunto required by the act of the General A.scmbly of Virginia aforesaid, and bccause he believed his court had no jurisdiction whatever to award the injunction

�