6gg INDEX. ?mn?, be nullgled by the State prohibiting euite in it? own court? ?n?t et?to officer? to prayant t?eJr en?orcin?ncon?tut?6n-J ?mtute? and contendLug that, the National trib?m?l? are ? precluded from Co. v. Cra?, 211. 6. Po',aer to taz spi? �n bond? tza, 'ehou?. It k within the power of the State to tax tapiritc in bonded w?zehouaee and rcqnire the warehatmeman to pay the s?me with interest aRer the tnam due to the United 8tatee Government ha,)e been paid; and i/the w?re- houseman is given a lien on the spirit? for the taxee and inteze? ? by him ha is not deprived o! his property witbout due omeee? o? ?'/mmpcon v. Kentua?/, 340. 6. P? liabi?,j o! offu?, i? enlorci? ? The attempt of a state officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute k �p?- coeding without authority of, and doee not affect, the State in its cove? eign or govemm?tal ?pacity, and is an ille?a! act and the officer is etripped of his official character and is subjected in b? person to the coueequencez of his individual conduct. The State has no power to imp?rt to it? officer immunity from re?punsibility to the enpreme an- tbority of the United States. Ez pm?e Young, 123. 7. Bug a?aO?t ? meaning o! Eleves? Amendment. A suit by a citizen of another State to restrain a etato officer from improperly enforcing a ztate statute, where no criminal prozecution has been com- menced, he/d, in thl. case, not, to he an action ? the State ? the intoning o! the Eleventh Mne?chnent. $cu//y v. Bird. 481. o?sr tror? ?1oroing u? state ?. While znaking & state officer who has no connection with the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional & party defendant is merely m?kinE him s p?rty as a reprecontative of the State, and thereby amountz to making the State & party within the prohibition of the Elev- enth Amendment, individuals, who, as ofiicors of the State, are clothed with come duty in regard to the enforcement o! the lawe of the State, and who threaten and are about to commence an ?'tion, either civil or oF?m{nsd, to e?{oree an unconstitutional state statute may be enjoined from co doing by �Feder&l court. Ex paste Young, 123. 9. ?h*?/?wee?; re?'erence to Order mferrLug cauae to master and directing conditioue under which toeti- mony ah?l he t?ken and master ? report to this court. Virgiaia v. Wed Virginia, 614. 10. ?qame. De?enchmt'a demurmr having been overruled, 206 U.?. 290, 82?, and fendant having answered, both compl-i-?-t-and cie?endant md?mittecl
�
