ACTIONS. While a common carrier sued at common law for penalt?,? under, or on in- dietmeat ior v?lation of, a state rate statute might interpose as a defenas the unconstitutionality of the statute on account of the conf?- eatory character of the ratee preecribed, a ?ury cannot intelligently pa? �.upo? ?uch a matter; the proper method is to determine the conetitution- allty of the statute in a court of equity in which the opinion? of expert? may be takea and the matter referred to a master to m?ke the needed ?mputat? and to find the n?mary fact* un whi.? tbe court may act. Ez ? Y0?ng, 123. In ? ca? a *uit by a stockholder agui?t a corporation to ea?dn the alimet- ore and officor! from complying with the proviZohs of a state statute, alleged t?. be unconstitutional? was properly brought with?u Equity Rule 94 of th? court. Ez ?art? Young, 123. 8. ?/t a?a?n? ?ate; u?at ? u?ia ?aning o! act o/ Tm? o! 1873. A ?uit a?ainst state offieer? to enjoin them from enforcing a state statute which violat? complainant's constitutional rights either by' its ?erm? or by the manner of it? enforcement is not a suit against the State within the meaning of the statute of 1873 of Tcnnessee? denying jurisdiction to the cour? of the State, of suit? agai?t the State. Goaded O?/C?. v. CraSh, 211. A bill in ?lity to set a?ide an agreement of adjustment of a community between the widow and children, brought after the death of the widow who ha? also left children by a second marriage, is a liquidation of the community and although the property was derived solely from the ?t husband the childron of the second marri?e are, as hein of the mother, interested hi her share and are nece?wy partle? to the bill. ? v. d? Rub/o? 283. $e? Jv?m?XCT]O?, B 6, C; P?L?C L?r?s, 2; ?rx?rr?s, A 2, 3.
�
