Document: 346 U.S. 368 74 S.Ct. 109 98 L.Ed. 80 STATE OF ARKANSASv.STATE TEXAS et al. No. ____, Original. Argued Oct. 21, 1953. Decided Nov. 16, Messrs. Thomas J. Gentry, Little Rock, Ark., E. Ball, for plaintiff. Marietta McGregor Creel, William H. Holloway, Austin, Tex., defendants. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a motion by Arkansas to file complaint against Texas and invoke our original jurisdiction granted Art. III, § 2, Constitution. 2 The alleges that University Arkansas, acting through its Board Trustees, Buchanan Foundation, corporation organized under laws Texas, entered into contract whereby Foundation agreed contribute sum $500,000 construction one-hundred bed pediatric floor in new hospital State Medical Center. allegations are that, though ready, willing, able perform, her Attorney General, has filed suit texas courts enjoin from performing on grounds law trust funds must be expended benefit residents. further an official instrumentality reliance agreement with it let contracts hospital, proceeded sixth floor, without proceed unless enjoined interference contract. 3 We issued rule show cause why leave should not granted, 345 954, 73 935. made return case been argued. 4 first argues indispensable party suit. do agree. theory interfering legal justification Arkansas' third person. At least since Lumley v. Gye, El. & Bl. 216, 118, Eng.Rep. 749 (Q.B.1853), action based tortious conduct recognized. See Angle Chicago, St. P., M. O.R. Co., 151 1, 13—15, 14 240, 244—245, 38 55; Bitterman Louisville N.R. 207 205, 222—223, 28 91, 97, 171. However appropriate might join as defendant case, see Florida, 306 398, 405, 59 563, 567, 83 817, controversy between Texas—the issue being whether unlawfully 5 contention two Stats challenged ground injured which does stand shoes State. must, course, represent interest own merely citizens corporations. Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson Cook, 304 387, 58 82 1416. But we read state instrumentality; conclude purposes any injury Arkansas. 6 University, was created legislature,1 governed Trustees appointed Governor consent Senate.2 Board, sure, 'a body politic corporate'3 power bonds pledge credit State.4 report all expenditures legislature,5 owns property used University.6 denominated public agency' State,7 referred 'an instrument performance governmental work',8 State.9 7 In determining litigated one exercise course look behind beyond form claim pressed. determine substance State, indeed real interest. supra, at pages 392—396, 956—958, view agency educational field—a branch or department 8 central question tenders william authority spend furtherance this project. That necessarily law, gets existence powers Texas. speak those issues. Were undertake resolve questions find ourselves conflict have final say. Moreover litigation now pending will authoritatively what is. therefore follow taken analogous situations, cf. Thompson Magnolia 309 478, 483, 60 628, 630, 84 876; Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 65 459, 89 789, continue present until concluded. If resolves whole controversy, leaving no federal questions, there occasion us further. It so ordered. 9 Motion continued. 10 JACKSON, whom FRANKFURTER, CLARK MINTON join, dissenting. 11 would deny outright, because think presented here. 12 1923, Buchanan, citizen resident executed within conveyance personal trustees. They, duly accepted trust. recited purpose create endow incorporated charitable enterprise known 'The Foundation' City Texarkana, Such particular carrying out provisions deed Buchanan. 13 needless recite these saying they broadly stated, some clauses broadest discretion Foundation. Another clause contemplates 'shall administered Bowie County, but only residents said county, also adjoining counties, well such other persons judgment receive benefits activities institutions established hereunder.' open good faith different interpretations seems apparent. trustees expend large charity institution. validity questioned General thereof, whose duties include supervision administration trusts. 15 circumstances cannot finally decide interpretation charter corporation's contract, then little left conception power. Court agree vestige, least, remains. 16 states concerns compact, Dyer Sims, 341 22, 71 557, 95 713, presents 'federal common law' upon neither statutes nor decisions either can conclusive', Hinderlider La Plata River 92, 110, 803, 810, 811, 1202, their rights inter sese. 17 Local may intertwined ultimate rights, if sufficient delaying wait order 'have advantage views court'. Com. Kentucky Indiana, 281 163, 177, 50 275, 784. 18 where, here, concerned say' basis holding ride herd court, assumption right. ought entertain possibility justice sister state. Of get just 19 valid, grievance. decides way, more plan do? What meaning docket? threat implicit keeping alive. Exertion state's ultra vires Since frivolous, done business. Ark.Acts 1871, 44; Ark.Stat. 1947, 80—2801 Anno. Ark.Stat.1947, 80—2802. 80—2804. Jacobs Sharp, 211 Ark. 865, 202 S.W.2d 964. 80—2817. Id., §§ 80—2849 ff., 80—2905, 80—3311. page 866, Vincenheller Reagan, 69 460, 474, 64 S.W. 278, 284. And Gipson Ingram, 215 812, 223 595. Allen Engineering Co. Kays, 106 174, 152 992.

Category: 8