In Tindal v. Wesley73 the doctrine of United States v. Lee was applied to a State of the Union, the court in its opinion saying: "Whether the one or the other party is entitled in law to possession is a judicial, not an executive or legislative question. It does not cease to be a judicial question because the defendant claims that the right of possession is in the government of which he is an officer or agent. . . . But the Eleventh Amendment gives no immunity to officers or agents of a State in withholding the property of a citizen without authority of law. And when such officers or agents assert that they are in rightful possession, they must make good that assertion when it is made to appear in a suit against them as individuals that the legal title and right of possession is in the plaintiff. . . . It is said that the judgment in this case may conclude the State. Not so. It is a judgment to the effect only that, as between the plaintiff and the defendants, the former is entitled to possession of the property in question, the latter having shown no valid authority to withhold possession from the plaintiff; that the assertion by the defendants of a right to remain in possession is without legal foundation. The State not being a party to the suit, the judgment will not conclude it. Not having submitted its right to the determination of the court in the case, it will be open to the State to bring any action that may be appropriate to establish and protect whatever claim it has to the premises in dispute. Its claim, if it means to assert one, will thus be brought to the test of the law as administered by tribunals ordained to determine controverted rights of property; and the record in this case will not be evidence against it for any purpose touching the merits of its claim."

73 167 U. S. 204; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 770; 42 L. ed. 137.