In 1884, the State of Virginia had passed an act which became known as the "coupom crusher," which provided that when coupons were tendered, the collector was to report the fact to the law officer of the Commonwealth and he was to bring suit for the taxes for the payment of which they were offered, and, if the coupons should not prove genuine, judgment, interest, a penalty, and an attorney's fee were to be given against the one offering them ; execution should issue on the judgment, and if this was not paid, a second suit, with more interest, penalties, and attorney's fees should be brought, and so on ad infinitum.

53 172 U. S. 102: 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 134; 43 L. ed. 182. 54 See Section 513.

An injunction was asked by certain citizens and granted by a federal circuit court to restrain the attorney-general of the State from putting these acts into force. This injunction that officer disobeyed. For this he was fined by the circuit court and, upon his refusal to pay the fine, was committed to jail. Thereupon he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of the United States.55 or omitted is purely ministerial, in the performance or omission of which the plaintiff has a legal interest." 56

That court held that the writ of injunction had been improvi-dently granted, that the commitment for contempt was consequently void, and released Ayers. The following was the argument of the court. The tender of the coupon, though constituting upon its face a legal tender of payment of taxes, did not deprive the State of the right to attempt by suit to prove the coupons not valid, and, therefore, that their tender in payment of the taxes was not a sufficient tender. The bringing of a suit by the law officer of the State after tender of coupons had been made was, in itself, no violation of a personal or property right and was in itself the breach of no contract. Indeed, the court declared, there was not a contract between the bondholders and the law officers of the State, personally considered. The suit was, therefore, not against them personally, but as officers of the State, to prevent them from bringing suits in the name and for the use of the State of Virginia. Therefore, it was declared, to restrain them was directly to coerce the State by judicial process at the instance of private individuals, a proceeding which the Eleventh Amendment forbids. But, the court is careful to say, "it is not intended in any way to impinge upon the principle which justifies suits against individual defendants who, under color of the authority of unconstitutional legislation by the State, are guilty of personal trespasses and wrongs, nor to forbid suits against officers in their official capacity either to arrest or direct their official action by injunction or mandamus where such suits are authorized by law, and the act to be done.

55 Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 164; 31 L. ed. 216.