Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/134/22
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:04:37+00:00

Document:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al. v. TEMPLE.
The bill further alleges that since the 20th day of January, 1870, none of the coupons belonging to said bonds, which have fallen due, have been paid, though payment of the same has been duly demanded; that the above-mentioned special taxes have not been collected, that none of the contracts performable under said act of January 29, 1869, have been performed; and that the government of the state has constantly enforced upon its officials compliance with the subsequent nullifying enactments above set forth. The bill then avers that by virtue of the provisions of the constitution of North Carolina and of the said act of the general assembly of January, 1869, and of the issue of bonds thereunder, a contract was constituted between the state and the holders of said bonds, which was in the same connection a contract executed by said state, by the levying of the tax and the committing of its collection to state taxing officials, and the direction to other state officials for the regular payment of the coupons, and the in vestment of the surplus arising from the taxes in good securities, to be kept as a sinking fund for the payment of the principal. It further avers that the statutes of North Carolina, hereinbefore set forth, which attempt to impair the contract in question, have not taken legal effect, for the reason that the said laws are violations of the constitution of the United States, both in its contract clause and in the fourteenth amendment thereto. After showing the manner of levying taxes in North Carolina, and several matters as grounds of equitable jurisdiction, the bill prays, among other things, that the respondents be perpetually enjoined from obstructing or impeding the collection and payment of the special tax in question; and that the respondent, the state of North Carolina, its executive agents and officials, and William P. Roberts, the auditor of the state, be decreed to execute the said act of January 29, 1869, and to cause the proper statutory lists to be sent to the boards of county commissioners containing provisions for the special tax above described; and for general relif .
T. F. Davidson, R. H. Battle, and J. W. Graham, for appellants.
E. L. Andrews, for appellee.
We think it perfectly clear that the suit against the auditor in this case was virtually a suit against the state of North Carolina. In this regard it comes within the principle of the cases of Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 128; Cunningham v. Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 446, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 292, 609; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 608; and In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164. We do not think it necessary to consider that question anew. The other point (the suability of the state) is settled by the de cision just rendered in Hans v. State, ante, 504. To the question on which the judges of the circuit court were opposed in opinion, our answer is in the negative, namely, that the suit could not be maintained in the circuitcourt against the state of North Carolina by the plaintiff, a citizen thereof. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the bill of complaint.
I dissent from so much of the judgment in this case as holds that this suit cannot be maintained against the auditor of the state of North Carolina. The legislation of which complaint is here made impaired the obligation of the state's contract, and was, therefore, unconstitutional and void. It did not, in law, affect the existence or operation of the previous statutes out of which the contract in question arose. So that the court was at liberty to compel the officer of the state to perform the duties which the statutes, constituting the contract, imposed upon him. A suit against him for such a purpose is not, in my judgment, one against the state. It is a suit to compel the performance of ministerial duties, from the performance of which the state's officer was not, and could not be, relieved by unconstitutional and void legislative enactments.
FRANK N. PROUT, Attorney General of the State of Nebraska, v. JAMES C. STARR, Samuel W. Allerton, and Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railway Company.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.