iO0 U. 8. l?.m,s?, J., o?ourri?. enterta? jurisdiction of the suit. The quest/on, we have seen, was deterre/ned adversely to jurisdiet/on. That certainly is a state, not a Federal question.. Surely, T?.nnessee has the right to say of what class of suits its own courts may take cognizance, and it was peculiarly the function of the Supreme Court of Tennessee to determine such a question. When, therefore, its highest court has declared that the Tennessee statute referred to in argument did not 'allow the i.?erior state court to take cognizance of a suit like this, that decision must be accepted as the interpretation to be placed on the local statute. Other- wise, this court will adjudge that the Tennessee court 8hall take jurisdiction of a suit of which the highest court of the State adjudges that it cannot do consistently with the laws of the State which created it and which established its jurisdic- tlon. It seems to me that this court, accepting the decision of the highest court of Tennessee, as to the meaning of the Ten- iessee st-,tute in question, as I think it must, has no alternative but to affirm the judgment, on the ground simply that the ground upon which it is placed is broad enough to support the judgment without reference to any question raised or discussed by counsel. What is said in the opinion of the court about the Eleventh 'Amendment, is, I submit, entirely irrelevant to any decision of the present case by this court. That Amendment relates wholly to the judicial power of the United States, and has absolutely nothing to do with the inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the infer- ior state court under the Tennessee statute of 1873.' In deter- mining what relief this court can or should give, in respect of the judgment under review, we need not considbr the SCOpe and meaning of the Eleventh Amendment; for, it. was long ago set- tied that a writ of error to review the final judgment of a state court, even when a State is a formal party and is successful in the inferior court, is not a suit within the rae?nln of the Amendment. Cohen? v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 408,409. In my opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court of Tennes- see, that the inferior state court was forbidden by the law of
�
