209 U.S. Syllabns. For the reasons given in that opinion, {he order appealed from herein must be A]firmed. Ms. JusT?cg HAnLA?,' dissenting. In my judgment the appellbe should have been put to his writ of error for the review of the judgment against him in the highest court of the State, competent under the state laws to re?xamine that judgment--thence to this cou?t to inquire whether any right belonging to him under the Federal Consti- tution had been violated. He should not have been discharged on habeas corpus. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U.S. 499; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, and authorities cited in each case. Upon the question as to what is and what is not a suit against the State ?fithin the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, my views are fully expressed in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Young, just decided. For the reasons there stated I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case. GENERAL OIL COMPANY v. CRAIN, INSPECTOR OF COAL OIL. ERROR TO THE SUFREME C?URT OF THE ST3TE OF TENNESSEE. Where complainant is entitled to equitable relief against the enforcement by state offricers of an unconstitutional state statute, the judgment of the state court dismissing the bill for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the suit is one against the State gives effect to the statute, denies complainant a constitutional right and is reviewable by this court under �9, Rev. Stat. A suit against state officers to enjoin them from enforcing a state statute which violates complainanUs constitutional fights either by its terms or by
�
