l"/mki v. ?/e�, 16"/U. 8. 204, to the mine egeet. In Pe?eo?, v. M?_?odaeo?, 140 U. 8. 1, 9, a red& ?a?t ?j?, wae cited, e?i it wae ?1: "]?t the h?eoeral of the United 8tatee will resh'nin s state ofr,,? from ex?uting ?m unconstitutional statute of the State, when to execute it !?i .been guaranteed by the Cons?tution, and would work U. 8. 58, 67. AndseeMifsom-i&�.v. Mis?mrri? Comm'uf/onez*, 1? U. 8.52. The c?es above cited do not include one ?rf?tly like this ,_rut_?r discussion. They serve to illustrate the principles upon which many eases have been decided. We have not cited all the eases,.as we have not thought it neep?try. But the in. junction a?ked for in the Ayer? Co?e, 123 U.S. (?r?), was to restrain the state ofi?cem from commencing suits under the act of ?ay 12, 1887 (alleged to be unconstitutional), in the name of the State and brought to reamer to. ze?/?or//? we, on the ground that if such su/ts were commenced they would be a breach of a contract with the State. The injunction was declared illegal because the suit itself could not be entertained .as it was one Rainst the State to enforce its alleged contract. It was said, however, that if the cour? had power to entertain such a suit, it would have power to grant the rest?nlng order
�
