138 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Ar?um?t fow Petites. ? U. 8. 'instituted by i par?y to a suit already p?ndlng before it which it Ess jurisdiction to try the same question therein ?u- volred. In r? 8aw?er, 124 U.S. 200. The suit in the Circuit Court ?s?tinst the Attorney General was in effect a suit against the State of The immunity of a State from suit, as provided by the Eleventh Amendment, Js not dependent upon any pee?mi?r? interest,-as contended by respondents. Where the decree of the court can operate only upon the State .and only to restrain the action of the State, the suit, no matter against whom it is brought, is in effect one against the State and in such case the pec?mla?y interest 'the State may or may not have in the result of the litigation is imn?terial. (?oveenor o! Georgia v. 'Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110; Ungted ,gtatez Wall. 227; United $tat? v. Arner?n Bell Telephone Co., 128. U.S. 548; Un?d $tate? v. Te/e'phone Co., 167 U.S. 224; Han? v. Lou?/ana, 134 U.S. 19. Reagan Case, 154 U.S. 362 and M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. H?'man, 183 U.S. 53, discussed an d dis- The 0ircuit Court was without jurisdietlon under F/tts v. Mc(?hee, 172 U.S. 516, which cannot he distinguished, and to sustain the suit in Minnesota, it must be shown that F/ttz v. MeGbee has be?n or should he overrtded. The doetriae of that case, however, was in aecordanee with the previous decisions of this court. Goveruor o/Geo?gfo v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110; Boa?;d o! Liqu?lation v. M?Comb, 92 U.S. U.'8..443. The doctrine estab?hed by these cases has become the settled rule of decision. And.see Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79? Dav?s & Faraura M!g. Co. v. Los Ange/es, 189 U.S. 207; Barn? v. State o/New York, 193 U.S. 430; Gu?zr v. At/a?- t? Coast Line R. R. Co., 200 U.S. 273; Farmera' Nat. Bank v, Jones, 105 Fed. Rep. 459; Haverhill Gas Light Co.v. Parker,
�
