Opinion of the Court. 107 U. S. 769; Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad, 109 U. S. 446, and Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52. The other class, the court said, "is where a suit is brought against defendants who, claiming to act as officers of the State, and under the color of an unconstitutional statute, commit acts of wrong and injury to the rights and property of the plaintiff acquired under a contract with the State. Such suit, whether brought to recover money or property in the hands of such defendants, unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the State, or for compensation in damages, or, in a proper case where the remedy at law is inadequate, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury, or for a mandamus, in a like case, to enforce upon the defendant the performance of a plain, legal duty, purely ministerial is not, within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, an action against the State" citing Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 Wall. 460; Litchfield v. Webster County, 101 U. S. 773; Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 114 U. S. 311; Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270. And in In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 190, the Chief Justice, referring to the review in Pennoyer v. McConnaughy of previous cases, said: "The result was correctly stated to be that where a suit is brought against defendants who claim to act as officers of a State and, under color of an unconstitutional statute, commit acts of wrong and injury to the property of the plaintiff, to recover money or property in their hands unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the State; or, for compensation for damages; or, in a proper case, for an injunction to prevent such wrong and injury; or, for a mandamus in a like case to enforce the performance of a plain, legal duty, purely ministerial; such suit is not, within the meaning of the amendment, an action against the State." In the recent case of Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 68, the principle was again announced, Mr. Justice Shiras delivering the opinion, that a suit against individuals, "who claim to act as officers of a State, and, under color of an unconstitutional statute, com Opinion of the Court. mit acts of wrong and injury to the property of the plaintiff, to recover money or property in their hands unlawfully taken by them in behalf of the State, or for compensation for damages, is not, within the meaning of the Constitution, an action against the State." The adjudged cases, in principle, determine the one before us. The settled doctrine of this court wholly precludes the idea that a suit against individuals to recover possession of real property is a suit against the State simply because the defendant holding possession happens to be an officer of the State and asserts that he is lawfully in possession on its behalf. We may repeat here what was said by Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the unanimous judgment of this court in United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115, 139: "It certainly can never be alleged that a mere suggestion of title in a State to property, in possession of an individual, must arrest the proceedings of the court, and prevent their looking into the suggestion, and examining the validity of the title." 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. The case here is not one in which judgment is asked against the defendants as officers of the State, nor one in which the plaintiff seeks to compel the specific performance by the State of any contract alleged to have been made by it, nor to enforce the discharge by the defendants of any specific duty enjoined by the State. Nor is it one, like Cunningham V. Macon & Brunswick Railroad, above cited, in which the plaintiff seeks to enforce a lien upon real estate in the actual possession of and claimed by the State, where a decree of sale would be fruitless, as no title could be given to the purchaser without the presence of the State as a party to the proceeding. It is a suit against individuals—a case in which the plaintiff seeks merely the possession of certain real estate once belonging to the State, but which the complaint alleges has become his property, and which, according to the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court thereon must, on this record, Opinion of the Court. be taken to belong absolutely to him. The withholding of such possession by defendants is consequently a wrong, but a wrong which, according to the view of counsel, cannot be remedied if the defendants chose to assert that the State, by them as its agents, is in rightful possession. The doors of the courts of justice are thus closed against one legally entitled to possession, by the mere assertion of the defendants that they are entitled to possession for the State. 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. If a suit against officers of a State to enjoin them from enforcing an unconstitutional statute, whereby the plaintiff's property will be injured, or to recover damages for taking under a void statute the property of the citizen, be not one against the State, it is impossible to see how a suit against the same individuals to recover the possession of property belonging to the plaintiff and illegally withheld by the defendants can be deemed a suit against the State. Any other view leads to this result: That if a State, by its officers, acting under a void statute, should seize for public use the property of a citizen, without making or securing just compensation for him, and thus violate the constitutional provision declaring that no State shall deprive any person of property without due process of law, Chicago, Burlington &c. Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 236, 241, the citizen is remediless so long as the State, by its agents, chooses to hold his property; for, according to the contention of the defendants, if such agents are sued as individuals, wrongfully in possession, they can bring about the dismissal of the suit by simply informing the court of the official character in which they hold the property thus illegally appropriated. It is true that even in such a case the citizen may, if he choose, rely upon the good faith of the State in the matter of compensation. But he is not compelled to part with his property for public use except upon the terms prescribed Opinion of the Court. by the supreme law of the land, namely, upon just compensation made or secured. 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 rights to the determination of the court in this 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. It was insisted in United States v. Lee, in support of the contention there made, that a judgment in favor of Lee against the persons who, as agents of the United States, held possession of Arlington would be in effect a judgment against the United States. But this court said: "Another consideration is, that since the United States cannot be made a defendant to a suit concerning its property, and no judgment in any suit against an individual who has possession or control of such property can bind or conclude the Government, as is decided by this court in the case of Carr v. United States, 98 U. S. 433, already referred to, the Government is always at liberty, notwithstanding any such judgment, to avail itself of all the remedies which the law allows to every person, natural or artificial, for the vindication and assertion of its rights. Hence, taking the present case as an illustration, the United States may proceed by a bill in chancery to quiet its title, in aid of which, if a proper case is made, a writ of injunction may be obtained. Or it may bring an action of ejectment, in which, on a direct issue between the United States as plaintiff and the present plaintiff as defendant, the title of the Syllabus. United States could be judicially determined. Or, if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution." 106 U. S. 222. We are of opinion that this suit is not one against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment; and as the record before us shows that the plaintiff owns the premises and is entitled to possession as against the defendants, the judgment must be Affirmed. UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. No. 344. Argued November 9, 10, 11, 1896. Decided May 10, 1897. If an application has been made for a patent for an invention, and the applicant has once called for action, he cannot be deprived of any benefits which flow from the ultimate action of the tribunal, although that tribunal may unnecessarily, negligently or even wantonly, if that supposition were admissible, delay its judgment. Maxwell Land Grant case, 121 U. S. 325, affirmed and followed to the point that a suit between individuals to set aside an instrument for fraud can only be sustained when the testimony in respect to the fraud is clear, unequivocal and convincing, and cannot be done upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt; and that if this be the settled rule in respect to suits between individuals it is much more so when the Government attempts to set aside its solemn patent: and if this is true when the suit is to set aside a patent for land, which conveys for all time the title, a fortiori it must be true when the suit is one to set aside a patent for an invention which only grants a temporary right. The case which the counsel for appellant presents may be summed up in these words: The application for this patent was duly filed. The Patent Office after the filing had full jurisdiction over the procedure; the applicant had no control over its action. We have been unable to offer a syllable of testimony tending to show that the applicant ever in any way corrupted or attempted to corrupt any of the officials of the department. |