The plaintiff complained in his statement of claim that the defendant Commonwealth had entered into an agreement with the State of Queensland which relates to the production, manufacture and disposal of sugar, and that it was beyond the power of the Commonwealth to do so. He founds his right to complain upon the allegation that he is a member of the public. It is, perhaps, not ungenerous to understand this as meaning that he is a natural-born subject of the King resident in Australia who pays taxes and consumes sugar. Dixon J. considered that the plaintiff disclosed no title to maintain a suit for any relief in respect of the agreement, and exercised the jurisdiction to dismiss the action brevi manu. It is quite clear that his Honor's view was right. For the Executive Government to make an agreement with a State cannot be an invasion of any legal right of a citizen as such, and cannot infringe upon any legal interest which he has in virtue of his citizenship only. In the United States taxpayers have been denied the privilege of challenging the constitutionality of the appropriation of moneys by Congress (Massachusetts v. Mellon; Frothingham v. Mellon[2]). The appeal should be dismissed.