Court Opinion

ID: 9651220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:10:31.258754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:30.983790
License: Public Domain

HUXMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
There are two lines of authorities, one holding that a state may maintain an action in which it is the real party in interest in its own name, without a relator,1 and the other holding that such an action may be maintained only by a relator.2 Oklahoma has not squarely passed upon the question. In Simpson v. Hill, 128 Okl. 269 263 P. 635, 56 A.L.R. 706, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the state was a political entity or sovereign. The state being an entity, I fail to see why it may not proceed in its own name and right, the same as any other legal entity. Of course a state can act only by an agent. That is likewise true of a corporation, which is a legal entity. Notwithstanding that an action by a corporation must be authorized by a proper representative, it is not necessary that it be maintained by a relator. I see no reason why the rule should be otherwise when the legal entity is the state.
Whether an action has been authorized may be made a matter of defense. There must, however, be a presumption that a person, either natural or artificial, having the right to maintain an action, has authorized the institution of the action filed in court. I cannot agree with the statement in thé majority opinion that a sovereign state can maintain an action only through the instrumentality of an agent authorized by law to act for it The right of a state to maintain an action is inherent in its sovereignty. The right to direct the institution of the action resides in the officer charged with the administration of the law out of which the action arises. In the absence of a contrary statutory declaration, the governor is the officer charged with the execution of the laws of the state. In his administration of the affairs of the state, he may, and it becomes his duty to direct the institution of all actions necessary to protect the interests of the state. But it is *589not required that he bring the action as relator.
In the absence of a pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, I choose to follow the line of reasoning which holds that a right belonging to a state may be enforced in an action brought in its own name and without a relator.

 59 C.J. § 486; Fry et al. v. State ex rel. Ristine, Auditor of State, 27 Ind. 348; Attorney General v. Delaware & B. B. R. Co., 27 N.J.Eq. 1; Laussat’s Fonblancque, Page 5, N.; Mitford’s Pleading by Jeremy, 99; 1 Newland’s Practice, 55; Blake’s Chancery Practice, 40; Cooper’s Equity, 101, 102; Hines v. Stahl, 79 Kan. 88, 99 P. 273, 20 L.R.A.,N.S., 1118, 131 Am.St.Rep. 280, 17 Ann.Cas. 298; State of Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed. 1346. This action was brought in the name of the state without a relator. While the precise question is not discussed, the Supreme Court states that Georgia was a person within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

 See cases cited in Note 5, majority opinion.