Daniel Henry Chamberlain

“ The result of the affirmance of the decree in Osborn v. Bank, by the Supreme Court of the United States, is, therefore,—
First: That an injunction will be granted to enjoin State officers from executing an unconstitutional State statute, where complainants show a proper interest therein; and,
Second: That when, in the course of the execution of such a statute by such State officers, specific funds have been seized by such State officers, and will be lost to the owner if transferred, an injunction will go to prevent such transfer. ”

“ Bank is clear beyond question, not only upon the record, but upon the opinion of Chief-Justice Marshall, wherein, under the fifth head, he discusses the question whether “the case made in the bill warrants the interference of a Court of Chancery,” and in which he states the question as follows (page 838) :—
“The true inquiry is, whether an injunction can be issued to restrain a person who is a State officer from performing any official Act enjoined by statute; and whether a Court of equity can decree restitution if the Act be performed?” Both these questions were answered in Osborn v. ”