482 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Ar?,m? fo? X?.___a?_. ?09 U.S. his authority in law was sufficient to protect him. Cu?m/ngharn v. Macon & Bru?w?k R. Co., 109 U.S. 451. The State is a political corporate body, can act only through its agents, and can cowm?nd ofily by laws. It is nec?y, therefore, for a defendant who seeks to substitute the State in his place, to produce a law of the State which constitutes his commission as its agent, and a warrant for his act. Bates, �0, Subd. 8; Po/?exter v. ?, 114U. S. 288. Whenever a citizen of a State can go into the courts of a state to defend his property against the illegal acts of its Officers, a citizen of another State may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to m?-intaiil & like defense. Bats?, �0, Subd. 9; Reaqan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 391. The suit at bar might have been m?intained in the stata courts of Michigan against said defendant. Pratt Food Co. v. B/xd, 148 Michigan, 631. The statute? of Michigan confer no authority upon the de- fendant to do the kcts of which complaint is made ?afftin?t him in this case. Comp. Laws Michigan, �78. The suit at bar should not have been dismissed under �of the act of 1875. U.S. Comp. Stat., �9; Farm/ngton v. P///z- bury, 114 U. S..138; W////amz v. Mattawa, 104 U.S. 212; Mat/ rocks v. Baker, 2 Fed. Rep. 457. The question whether th? .suit at bar is, in. legal effect, a suit against the State is one on the merits of the case, and it was error for the trial court to hold that it was a question of jurisdiction, and to dismisa the bill on that account for want of jurisdiction. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Adaras, 180 U.S. 28. Mr. John E. Bird, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, and Mr. Gwrge $. Law, for appellee: A decree denying the temporary injunction and diswi?ing the bill of complaint, was the only decree that could have ? rendered by the Circuit Court. Arbuck/e v. B/ac/dru?, 113 Fed. Rep. 616;,5. C., 191 U.S. 405.. Pratt Food Co. v. B/rd, 148 Michigan, 641, r?lied .upon by
�
