The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-02-26

possess her of a railroad of which she had
both title and actual possession. the suit
was not one of which it could retain juris-
diction.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in
this case of Cunningham .. Railroad Com
pdny, really Cunningham o. Georgia. flor
the State herself was the railroad COM
pany). settles in advance the case pending
before it from Virginia of Allen and Ham
Iton q. baltimore and Ohio Railroad COM
paay, and maFes it reasonably certain that.
at least on the question of jurisdiction as
to parties, it will affirm the ruling of
Judge Bond and reverse my own
1t settles also the case at bar; for the
granting of a preliminary injunction here
is by no means as extreme an exercise of
Jnrisdictional power as there was in the
Texas case. where Federal court arrested
the hand of a Governor and Land Com
missioner while engaged in violating a
legislative contract or as there was in
the Louisiana and McComb case where
another Federal court, in order to prevent
an indirect and contingent depreciation of
compliments bonds. forbade the States
financial Board from issuing bonds which
they deemed but which the court denied,
that they had a right to issue; or as there
was in the Arlington case. where this
court. in which l now sit, gave Judgment
against officers of the army of the United
States. holding for the United States. one
OF them in charge of cemetery for Union
soldiers-ordering them off the patrimony
Of the Lees and requiring possession to be
given to a general of the Confederacy.
Compared with those cases. the one at
bar, involving as it does less than S.. 900 in
nominal value of dishonored coupons, is
not of superior Importance.
L think from what itself has said that
there can be no reasonable doubt enter
tanned as to what the Supreme Courts
views are on the subject of suits against
officers of States. That Congress is of
opinion that the revenue officers of the
States may be ''enjoined and stayed in
their collections. is shown by the terms of
sectioa 949 of the United STATES Revised
Statutes.from which have quoted. shall,
therefore, leave that branch of the subject.
come now to the question whether this
court. having jurisdiction as to parties,
has. as court of equity, jurisdiction of
the remedy. and may grant the inj motion
prayed for by the complainant Assuming.
from the condition of the pleadings, that
the coupons described in the bill are gen.
uine, and that complainant has transferred
them to taxpayers with the quality of re-
ceivability guaranteed. the remaining
question is simply one of the jurisdiction
of equity as to the remedy applied for.
Ii the writ of mandamus is, on general
principles, the proper one in this case it
must be observed that it is taken away
from the complainant by the Act of AS
sembly of January 26. 1882, and by the
Acts of 1884 relating to licenses. Manda-
mus being remedy at law. and the 9l4th
section of the United States Revised
Statutes having conformed the practice in
the courts of the United States in COM
mon law cases to that employed in the
courts of the States in which they are re-
specially held. the statutes of Virginia
which take away mandamus in coupon
cases in the State courts take it away in
those of the United States. Ha7vey &c
Blair o. Virginia. 8Vi,'yi'aia LCao Journal. 400.
And therefore complainant. having no
remedy at law and being otherwise remedi-
less, resorts to equity. and applies here for
what is known in English and American
Jurisprudence as mandatory injunction.
which is the counterpart in equity of
ma damuS at law.
Must we go into the elementary books
to find warrant for such a process? Jer-
envy, in his Equity Jurisdictions" says {:
IAN injunction is writ framed according
to the circumstances of the case, command
ing All act which the court regards essen
tial to justice, or restraining al act which
it considers contrary to equity and good