SCULLY v. BIRD. Argument for Appellant& SCULLY v. BIRD. �m?F?L FROM ?. CURCU?? COtroT OF ?HE Ur?l?n S? ?a ?E ?STERN DISTRI? O? MICHIGAN. No. ?. 8?t? Ap?l ?. l?8.?id? M?y 4. 1? ? m? ? not ?e ? ? ? ?t ?tw? the op?on of ? ?uit ? ?d i? ?ifi?. ? ?ifi? that the bill w? di?i?d ?lely ? the suit w? ?t t? S? ?thin the me?i? of the Eleventh Amendment ?d therefore not ? ?e junction of the F?ral ?u? ? such, this ? ?ot de?e whether t? bill shoed have ?n d'? ?ca? not p? ?t?g a ? for ?uitable ?lief. A ?it by a cit? of ?other Sta? ? ?(min a ?a? offi?r from impm?rly e?o?g a s? statu?, whe? no c?minal p?utiou h? ? ?m- men?, ?, ? th? c?, not ? ? ? ?tion ?st the S? ?t? t? m?g of the Elev?th Amen?t. ?E fac? ?e sta? in the op?on. Mr. E. T. F?, for ap?l]an?: ?e proMbition of the El?enth Amendment do? not apply where a ?t ? brought a?st defendan? who, claiming ? ?t ? offi? of the Sta?, ?d under color of a statu? which ? vaBd and ?mtitution?, but wron?ully ?ni?red by ?em, comet, or th?a?n ? comet, acts of ?ong or inju? ? the ?gh? ?d pro?y of the plaintiff, or make such ?- mini?mti? of the ?tu? an i]]e? bu?en and exaction upon the plY. ? F?. ?. Pro. (1?1 ed.), ? 5?, Su?. 4; R? v. F?s' ? & T?t Co., I?U. S. 388. N? where ? ?di?dual is su? in to? for some act injurio? ? ?o?er ? ?rd ? ?on or prope?y, to which his delete ? that he ? ac? under the o?e? of the gove?ment. In ? c]? of ?, the defendant is not sued ?, or becau? he M, the offi?r of the gove?ment, but ? an individual, and the ? is not o? of ju?iction ?cause he ?se? autho?ty ? ?ch offi?r. To ?ke out Ms defer, he m? show that
�
