The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-28
M'NALL IS EhJ0|NED
Continued from Fifth Page)

action al law in the circuit court of tn!
United States and the district of Kansa:
against said company to recover a judg
ment for said sum of more than $4,000
and it alleges that ever since said actor
at law was commenced the company haG
been in the orderly and peaceful litiga
ton in said court Of said claim. and thai
the said Sallie E. Hillmon has never re-
covered a final judgmen. against thi:
company for any part of said sum, and
that her claim is al this time, and has
been for more than fifteen years, a dis
puted claim in the course OF an orderly
and proper litigation in said court, which
said li,igat ton is Still pending and I'M
determined. 1t charges further that q
damage and injury 10 tae company viii
be irreparable and that for such damage
the company has no adequate remedy az
law, il alleging upon information and be-
lief that the said Webb McNall is wholly
insolyent II further states that by the
laws Of the state OF Kansas the said in
surance commissioner, whenever in his
iuIgmen il is necessary, may call upon
the attorney general Of the state 10 bring
action or to prosecute criminaly any in
eurance company doing business in said
state without a license, and that this
may be done in any county in the state
where the said insurance company has
an agency or an agent, and as against
the said Louis c. Boyle, the attorney
general of said state, it charges him with
unfolding and encouraging the defend
ant. Webb McNall, in the assertion by
The said Webb McNall of the right 10 de-
ny 70 the plaintiff the equal protection
OF the laws within the STATE Of Kansas.
and OF the right TO deprive il of the
property without due process Of law, and
acting in concert with the defendant,
Weob McNall, and for the purpose Of
h4rrassng and inlimidating the agents
and employees OF the complainant has
threatened to, and viii, unless restrain
ed by the court, commence proceedings
against complainant, its agents and en-
ployes and compel il ID defend a multi
plicity OF suits in actions inStigated by
said McNall and said Louis c. Boyle for
the purpose Of preventing complainant
from possibly transacting its business OF
life insurance within the state Of Kan
eas. and designed by the defendants Nc
Nall and Boyle. 10 deny TO complainant
the equal protection Of the laws and de-
prive * of its property within the state
OF Kansas withoutd ue process Of law.
The prayer of the bill is for a decree
adjudging that 1t is the duty Of said
Webb McNall, as superintendent of in
surance, 10 forthwith issue and deliver
TO the complainant a certificate of au
thority to do business within the state Of
Kansas, and, also, hat the court grant
Temporary injunction against the said
Webb McNall, as superintendent Of in
surance Of the state OF Kansas, mis-
agents and employees, and against the
said Louis c. Boyle, as attorney general
of the sta,e OF Kansas. enjolning and re-
straininS each of said defendants, and
ell persons connected under them, from
in any manner whatever interfering
with the transactions by the complainant
in the state OF Kansas of its said bust
ness of life insurance, and for al other
relief.
This petition and application for re-
stradning order was presented 10 one OF
the United States district Judges, who
wasrassigned 10 hold court in the district
Of Kansas, who thereupon granted a re-
srraining order, restraining the defend
ants; McNall andtBoyle, from interfering
with said insurance company, in accord
ance substantially with the prayer OF the
petition, said restraining order to remain
in force only until the next term of court
10 he holden where the said action was
commenced. At the hearing the defend
ants interposed a demurrer TO said COM
plant. and all questions involved and
raised by the,demurrer are submitted TO
the court for final determination.
There ase two questions of law involv-
ed in this case: The first is as to the
power of the court TO grant the relief
prayed for, taking into consideration the
provisions OF the Eleventh amendment
10 the Constitution Of the United Slater.
whichsit IS urged by the defendants. pro
hibits ;he court from proceeding in any
manner against the defendants because
they are officers of the sovereign state of
Kansas and they are within the prohibi-
ton and are protected by the provisions
OF said amendment from being required
10 answer or restrained from acting in
any manner as officers Of said state.
That me question involved is one Of
Importance need not be asserted and
this court desires % express al the very
threshhO.1 OF the Investigation a life
long convictionsand adherence 10 the
doctrine that the rights Of the states I'M
der our form OF government. should at
all times receive proper protection. e.
pecially a he hands % the judicial de-
psrcment u the general government,
and while il Will in the discharge of its
duty endeavor To enforce all laws Of the
United States. il VIII also under all cir-
cumstances render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesars and abstain
from encro1ching in any manner upon
the rights of any sovereign state Of the
officers thereof
The question Of the force and effect Of
me eleventh amendment 10 the cons.i-
tu.ion o. the United States 10 what ex-
tent the officers OF the several states
are exempt under il from any process or
control nv the courts OF the United
States. mas been subject az adiudica-
lion upon many occasions, and has been
many times decided by the supreme
c5ari g the United States ! deem il
unnecessary 10 refer q al the decisions.
but begin with the decision in the case
- Board u Liquidation vs.. Macomb. in
the sd United States. page 431. In ;hat
case the court used tha following Ian
elage:
= No Word - Fun
nAR0 Ia Of us,r, Cd