The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1888-11-27
officers of the State of s ,uth Carolina, on bond


taxes AMI dues to the State" to compel It's re-
ceipt for taxes This was held TO be II suit that
could not be maintained, because the State could
not be comp He'd to perform her contract by
suit against her officers TIL" case OF IN re Ay
ers was on writ of hubeds corpus. bill had
been filed to enjnin officers OF the State OF Vir-
ginll from prosecuting suits IN the name OF the
State against The tax payers reported to be de-
inQuent, for the recovery ~ their taXcs-the
gravamen OF the bill being that they refused
to receive coupons of the Safe tor taxes,
though made receivable by law, AMI that this
was a violation of the contract of the State but
that under subsequent law suits were threat
ened against those who rendered the coupons,
and would not otherwise pay their taxes. An
injunction WAS granted, which the OH 'ers DISC
beyed and they were put into custody for con
tempt. the writ of habeas corpus Is Tor their
reliet The court discharged The parties, holding
that though the suits threatened might be
breach OF the contract OF III State, yet the in
functions should not have been granted, because
the actual party upon whom it operated WAS The
State, and not the officers who We're sued and
there being no jurisdiction against The State the
Injunction was void, and did not furnish legal
ground for imprisonment
The court refused jurisdiction Of two of these
suits. because they involved Stale contracts of
the third because it involved properly of the
S ate, and of the fourth, because although the
foundation o. the suit involved contract of the
State, the Immediate proceeding WAS to relieve
her officers from punishment for dong in her
name, that which, when done. would be her own
act
Looking to cases we find in the State courts,
they are substantially of the. same nature That
of Stale er rel. Hart vs.. Burke, Treasurer CT al
33 L. Ann, 49S, was suit presenting in part
the same questions AS those in Louisiana VS.
Jumel and was decided adversely 10 the plain
tiff on the ground that if h" had contract rights
against the State they could not he enforced bv
n suit aIalnst her officers, she not being y party
In Weston VS.. d me, 81 Me, 461; Marshal Va
Clark % Tex, % and H,u-toun. Tap & Braz,
MIA r r. Co. We. Rand ,lph "a Tex 81. sim
liar decisions were given the cases being against
officers on pccuniary claims against the State;
and similar decisions in Prntup VS.. Cherokee
K. Co, 45 Geo, 365 and H,smer VS. D.
Young, Tex, 164 being cases in winch prop-
erv Claimed bv The Safe WAS involved
!! appears, s. far as can tiAI in the report
ell cases, that the rule which torbls 4 suit against
officers becauS" IN effect a suit rnSi The State,
applies only where the interest Of the State is
through som" con ract, or some proD"rtv right,
OF hers, or where her interest is in Sili br nlrht
or Threatened hy her "ftic -. u her own name
TO enforce some alleged claim Of h"rs AMI il
Is important To observe the character OF the in
terest. l. /, not enough that the state should
have q mere interest IL the vnliclii0Y of her
laws, OF in their rnflrccmrnt aft citing the
public At barge or as they af.c' III, rights of in.
1lvidutl> or G ,fD pratipHs. bat il must y. An in
tercSl ui value 80 herself "a = Instinct rntitv-of
vtlue in a material s"nS.. SAn has an in,prcs.
in the sucrr-s oi HE policy nt her Avs and in
the ilSt ADMINISTRATION and cV"cl'ion Of thos..
laws. vet il j. uot an Interest," on which She c4n
be sid - b. Il party affected by any private suit
Arising under th"n when i j. not m otherwise
AMI IN IRE dire' interest inll ring in SON. s,.o.
ar.itr ri CHI rr ella IN Of right o! her own
VIII his distinction in mind. how Stlnt', the
= n ia IF /,
siiu - the off = o. the 'mn,~i ,n,r~ nrpv les
'ht' thcV 81 make and fix rraS unable and
jl9i rates q. tr' !hS AMI lsS"ng"r lnfitf- 10 b.
obs 'rvt.,l hr all rsilrosl companies doing bn-i
= =, ~ THIS a'", On 'hc railroads thereof: shall
N Ike r.. epnab, AMI ls: rules anl rcy,l} ,tion-
- l." observed hv III .ilrpal cpnplnl". ,}oinv
h}~in - 'hi~ : at". rs - cnh~4'~s..,t any and
n 'jr'~ 10" III" n"r's>Q"v han Hin and ,lrjvr~
ar uf lr.js}l's: IN u max. such last aud rrA
>'nt cole rnl'~ aa resolutions y n i h" necessary
tpr ar venting mi III di~cumin4ti ms in the
Transportation If freight AMI u ~s-ngrrS OF III"
rljrp lds in this S',;r: S".il N ,3c r":lsrna'le
,.ul ~ rates - chartr~ to- lS~ 1T railroad ,r-
clrrrjnG an an ! Al kjnI~ 81 fec' y'ti AMI nls-
'n-cr~ on sal railroads. no m ft"r hY whom
Owned or c,rlirl. an STALL mrko u.s. nnd rr,-
spn th'r rules an r"gu ttipYc - be observed hv
sad lirpal comp l4if'Sp 90 sai rNlrul,l> 10 n,c-
vcn g'v'n9 o. any lch ,'c or b mus. directly or
indirectly, and RON mis-" elng oi dereiving the
public IN Any m tnn"r to HE real rates
charr" f,r freight aad pa:s.nIrrs'
Tne h section aohoriz aud qlres the
Commissioners to malie- tar Zach of HE rail
70 Al CO.. pGr,'innS d,int hj,ineS~ in This State.
As soon rs practicable, "a schedule Of Just and
reasonable rates Of charges for IN" transp rita
ti''Q IF ptSScnHrrS nn fret rh'S and cars on each
81 said railroads. ana said schedules Shall, in
(nY sNil brought against any >0ch railroad cor
partiionS Wherein is involved ihn charg.s Of
Any such r,ilroal corporations for the trans.
} 81 III .f.,tuf