Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/471

 of the ce as presented by the whole record, and not "by � referellce to the nominal l,rties to the record." This the Circuit Court did, and from an inspection of the entire record, for the reasons stated in the opinion fried, the court held that, although the State of Nebraska was a nomi- nal party plaintiff on the record, yet it had no real substantial legal interest in the controversy. The complaint alleged that the Nebraska State Railway Commition was charged with the duty to regulate proper and lawful intrastate rates upon the railroad lines in the State of Nebraska, and to enforce thereon all lawful intrastate rates and ckarges for the transpor- tation of passengers and freight, and to prevent discrimina- tion in such intrastate freight and patenget rates and charges; and alleged the duty of the Attorney General + bring all suits necessary for that purpose; the suit had for its object and purpose merely the securing of an injunction agio int the defencLant company, to restrain that company from chafing for the transportation of freight and patengets within the State of Nebraska more than the rates fixed by the state au- thority for that purpose, and from disobeying ordem of said Nebraska State Railway Commition, and from concealing from said commition the true condition of its business, and from making any ,,nlawful discrimination in issuing intra- state passes, mileage tickets and transportation within the State of Nebraska. The question whether the State of Nebraska is the real party plaintiff must be determined from the consideration of the nature of the case as. disclosed by the record. If the nature of the case is such that the State of Nebraska is the real party plaintiff, the Federal court will so decide for all purposes of jurisdiction, even though the State were not named as a party plaintiff. If the nature of the case is such that the State is not a real party plaintiff, the .Federal court will so decide for the purpooes of jurisdiction, even though the State is named nominally as a party plaintiff. The question whether such a case as this is one in which

�