dignity of the sovereignty prevents it admitting that its grants are so valueless that they can be invaded without reparation in every case. "Generally speaking, every willful interference with a franchise is actionable without regard to the defendant's act being done in good faith by reason of a mistaken notion of duty or claim of right, or being consciously wrongful. 'If a man hath a franchise and is hindered in the enjoyment thereof an action doth lie, which is an action upon the case. Holt, C. J."[1]
But that liberty itself, especially that emanating from the sovereign, is put upon still higher grounds, is clear.
The opinion of Lord Camden—a landmark in the history of our liberty—in 1763, in Huckle vs. Money,[2] is instructive! And this is followed in Scott vs. Donald,[3] which, if rightly comprehended, covers the exact point now being discussed.
There the officers of the State of South Carolina had interfered with this exact right, or liberty, and had withheld a few dollars' worth of liquors being obtained through interstate trade. Action was brought for this invasion of the nationally granted right, and six thousand dollars of damages claimed; but as the liquors detained were of so little value, the question of jurisdiction was raised, because the amount in controversy did not reach two thousand dollars, as required by the Act, but the Supreme Court said: "The intentional, malicious, and repeated interference by the defendants with the exercise of personal rights and privileges secured to the plaintiff by the Constitu-
58
