Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

has been declared by congress to be a rule of decision in the courts of the United States.25

§ 83. Same-Fraudulent conveyance.-The statute of Elizabeth against fraudulent conveyances, has been universally adopted in American law as the basis of our jurisprudence on that subject, and re-enacted in terms, or nearly so, or with some change of language, by the legislatures of the several states. In controversies arising under this statute, involving, as they do, the rights of creditors locally, and a rule of property, the supreme court of the United States accepts the conclusions of the highest judicial tribunal of the state as controlling.26

§ 84. Recording acts of the states. The supreme court of the United States is bound to follow the decisions of the courts of the states in the construction of their recording acts, if there has been a uniform course of decisions respecting them 27 § 85. Decision as to whether a corporation has been created. The decision of the highest court of a state, that a certain association has been duly created a corporation according to its constitution and laws is binding on the United States supreme court.28 And a construction placed by the highest court of a state on a statute enacted by its legislature chartering or incorporating a company, as to the powers of such corporation, is conclusive on the United States supreme court.29 The decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania that the Erie Railway Company was doing business in that state in the sense of a statute of the state on that subject was accepted as conclusive by the supreme court of the United States.30

§ 86. Principles of general law-Responsibility of railroad company to employe.-The unvarying rule is that in cases or questions whose decisions depend upon general principles of law, the supreme court of the United States, while leaning

25 Moses v. Bank, 149 U. S. 298 (37:743).

26 Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, 697 (33:696); Jaffray v. McGhee, 107 U. S. 361, 364 (27:495); Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 485 (23: 369); Allen v. Massey, 17 Wall. 351 (21:542).

27 Townsend v. Todd, 91 U. S.

452, 454 (23:413); Bank V. Sprague, 17 Fed. R. 788.

28 Nesmith v. Sheldon, 7 How. 812 (12:925).

29 Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198 (12:666).

30 Erie Railway Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492, 500 (22:595).

toward the views of the highest court of the state where the cause of action may arise, will always exercise an independent judgment, and will determine the question involved by a reference to all the authorities applicable to it, and a consideration of the principles underlying it; and it is the settled doctrine of the federal courts that the responsibility of a railroad company to its employes, and its liability to them for personal injuries received by the negligence of its servants, and who are, and who are not fellow-servants, are, in the absence of controlling local statutes, matters of general law in regard to which the federal courts will exercise an independent judgment.31

§ 87. General commercial law. While the federal courts must regard the laws, and their construction by the state courts (except when the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States otherwise provide), as rules of decision in trials at common law, in cases where applicable, they are not bound by the decisions of the state courts upon questions of general commercial law; for such state decisions are not expositions of any local law, but a law existing throughout the union, except where it has been modified or changed by some local statute; it is a law not peculiar to one state, nor dependent upon local authority, but one arising out of the usages of the commercial world, and in the application of its principles the federal court will exercise an independent judgment.32

31 Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 411 (37:772); Gardner v. Michigan Central R. Co., 150 U. S. 349, 361 (37:1107); Pennsylvania Co. v. Fishack, 59 C. C. A. 269.

In the case first above cited, Brewer, Justice, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "Again, according to the decisions of this court, it is not open to doubt that the responsibility of a railroad company to its employes is a matter of general law. But passing beyond the matter of authorities, the question is essentially one of general law. It does not depend upon any statute; it

*

*

does not spring from any local usage or custom; there is in it no rule of property, but it rests upon those considerations of right and justice which have been gathered into the great body of the rules and principles known as the 'common law.' There is no question as to the power of the states to legislate and change the rules of the common law in this respect as in others; but in the absence of such legislation the question is one determinable only by the general principles of the law."

32 Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 24 (10:865); Oates V. First Nat.

§ 88. Same-Insurance policies.-The construction of a policy of fire insurance is a matter of general commercial law, and is not regulated by any local policy or custom; and, while the decisions of the state tribunals on the subject are entitled to great respect, they cannot conclude the judgment of the federal courts in adjudicating upon the rights of parties to such contracts.33 The construction of a policy of marine insurance depends on questions of general commercial law, in respect of which the courts of the United States are at liberty to exercise their own judgment, and are not bound to accept the state decisions of the state where the contract was made.3" But the interpretation of a state statute by the highest court of a state, holding that it applies to policies issued by foreign insurance companies, and annuls the provisions of such policies. where they contravene the statute, is binding on the supreme court of the United States.35

§ 89. When private rights determined by common law.— When private rights are to be determined by the application of common-law rules alone, the supreme court, although entertaining for state tribunals the highest respect, does not feel bound by their decision.36

§ 90. Constitutionality of state statute authorizing issue of bonds in aid of railway construction.-The question whether or not a state statute enabling any township, city or village to issue bonds in aid of railroad construction, is in conflict with the constitution of the state, is a question of general jurisprudence, in regard to which the supreme court of the United

Bank, 100 U. S. 239, 250 (25:580); Brooklyn City and Newton R. Co. v. Nat. Bank, 102 U. S. 14, 59 (26:61); Carpenter v. Ins. Co., 16 Pet. 495; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517 (15:509). "The law respecting negotiable instruments may truly be declared in the language of Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield, to be in a great measure not the law of a single country only, but of the commercial world." Story, Justice, in Swift v. Tyson, supra.

33 Carpenter v. The Providence

Washington Insurance Co., 16
Pet. 495, 512 (10:1044).

34 Washburn & Marine Manufacturing Co. v. Reliance Marine Insurance Co., 179 U. S. 1, 19 (45: 49).

35 New York Life Insurance Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389, 401, (44: 1116).

36 Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black, 418, 429 (17:298): Murray V. Railroad, 92 Fed. 871; Myrick v. Mich. Central R. R., 107 U. S. 109 (27:327).

States will exercise an independent judgment and will not be bound by the decisions of the highest court of the state where the transaction arose. It is an axiom in Amercian jurisprudence, that a state statute is not to be pronounced void upon the ground that it is in conflict with the constitution of the state, unless the repugnancy to the constitution be clear and the conclusion that it exists is inevitable; every doubt is to be resolved in support of the enactment; the particular clause of the constitution with which it is alleged to be in conflict must be specified, and the act must admit of no reasonable construction in harmony with it, before it can be declared void. If the question involve the validity of commercial securities in the hands of bona fide holders, and at the time the securities were issued there had been no authoritative intimation that the statute in question was invalid, then in such case the question as to the validity of the statute belongs to the domain of general jurisprudence, and the federal courts are not bound by the judgment of the courts of the state where the case arises, but must hear and determine for themselves."

§ 91. When federal courts will change their decisions to conform to state decisions.-The supreme court will change its decision construing a state constitution when no rights have been acquired under it, and when it is made to appear that before the decision was made the highest tribunal of the state had interpreted the constitution differently, and that interpretation has become a fixed rule of property within the state.30 In determining what the laws of the several states are, which will be regarded as rules of decision, the supreme court is bound to look, not only at their constitutions and statutes, but at the decisions of their highest courts giving construction to them; and if there be any inconsistency in them, the general rule is that the supreme court follows the latest settled adjudications. in preference to their earlier ones.40

37 Pine Grove Township v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 679 (22:227); Olcott v. Supervisors of Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. 678, 698 (21:382).

38 Pine Grove Township v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 679 (22:227); Olcott v. Supervisors of Fond du Lac county, 16 Wall. 678,698 (21: 382).

39 Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47, 55 (25:544); Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U. S. 224 (32:405); Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291 (8:402); Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. 427 (16:742).

40 Wade v. Travis County, 174 U. S. 499, 510 (43:1060).

41

§ 92. When federal courts will not change their decisions to conform to state decisions.-When the highest court of a state has at different times placed different constructions upon the same statute of the state, the supreme court of the United States will not change its decision in order to conform to the state decision, if thereby contract rights which have accrued under the earlier decisions will be injuriously affected. And when the United States supreme court has first decided a question arising under a state statute and has placed a construction on that statute, that court will not change its decision to conform to a subsequently rendered contrary decision of the state court where it would destroy vested rights which accrued under the former decision.42 When a circuit court of the United States has, before any state decision upon the question, decided a question of state law, construing a state statute, upholding as valid certain commercial securities, and after the decision. in the circuit court, and pending a writ of error therefrom, the state court renders a contrary decision, the supreme court will not reverse the decision of the circuit court in order to conform to the state court's decision.43 When a circuit court of the United States adjudicates a land title in accordance with the decisions of the state courts constituting rules of property, the supreme court will not reverse the decision of the circuit court because since that decision the state courts have reversed their former decisions on the subject.**

§ 93. Federal administration of state laws in cases where a federal question is involved.-The constitution and valid laws and treaties of the United States are the supreme law of the

41 Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677, 688 (25:968); Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356 (29: 633); Ralls County v. Douglass, 105 U. S. 733 (26:1220); New Buffalo v. Cambria Iron Works Co., 105 U. S. 73 (26:1024); Foote v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 688 (25: 972); Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278 (26:1090); Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256 (26:392); Darlington v. Jackson, 101 U. S. C88 (25:972); Thompson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327 (18:177); Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477

(19:725); Lee County v. United States, 7 Wall. 181 (19:160); Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 (17: 520); Olcott V. Fond du Lac County, 16 Wall. 678 (21:382).

42 Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595 (15:518); Black V. Bourbon, County, 99 U. S. 686 (25:491).

43 Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556 (28:517); Burgess v. Selegman, 107 U. S. 20 (27:359); Town of Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 119 (25:880).

44 Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1, 3 (15:823).

« AnteriorContinuar »