Moreover the judgment was upon both counts. It is impossible to go further, and to pass upon the delicate question of constitutional law that was argued here.

Writ of error dismissed.

ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY v. SOWERS.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

No. 64. Argued January 8, 1909.-Decided March 1, 1909.

Where the opinion of the state court shows that it considered and denied the validity of a statute of another State, and its binding force to control the right of action asserted, a Federal right specially set up is denied, and this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat. Congress has only reserved a revisory power over territorial legislation, and a statute duly enacted, and within the legislative power of the Territory, remains in full force until Congress annuls it by exerting such power. Miner's Bank v. Iowa, 12 Howard, 1, 8. Under the provisions of the Constitution which declare the supremacy of the National Government, Congress has power to enact, as it has done by §§ 905, 906, Rev. Stat., that the same faith and credit be given in the courts of the States and Territories to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the Territories as are given to those of the States under Art. IV, § 1, of the Constitution. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.

The passage of a legislative act of a Territory is the exercise of authority under the United States. McLean v. Railroad Co., 203 U. S. 38, 47. Where Congress confers on a Territory legislative power extending to all rightful subjects of legislation the Territory has authority to legislate concerning personal injuries and rights of action relating thereto; and so held in regard to the legislative power of New Mexico under act of Sept. 9, 1850, c. 49, 9 Stat. 446.

Actions for personal injuries are transitory and maintainable wherever a court may be found that has jurisdiction of the parties and the sub

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

213 U. S.

ject-matter, Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, and although in such an action the law of the place governs in enforcing the right, the action may be sustained in another jurisdiction when not inconsistent with any local policy. Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. 168 U. S. 445.

No State or Territory can pass laws having force or effect over persons or property beyond its jurisdiction.

A court that only permits a recovery on a cause of action on plaintiff's showing compliance with the conditions imposed by a statute of the Territory in which the cause arose has given to that statute the observance required under § 906, Rev. Stat., and if the action is one otherwise controlled by common-law principles its jurisdiction is not defeated because such statute requires actions of that nature to be brought in the courts of the Territory.

An action for personal injuries sustained in New Mexico may be maintained in the courts of Texas subject to the conditions imposed by the territorial act of New Mexico of March 11, 1903, notwithstanding that act required actions of that nature to be brought in the District Court of the Territory.

99 S. W. Rep. 190, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Andrew H. Culwell, with whom Mr. J. W. Terry, Mr. Gardiner Lathrop and Mr. Aldis B. Browne were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:

The statute of the Territory of New Mexico herein interposed was a valid and subsisting law at the time of the occurrences stated, and, as such, was entitled to respect and consideration in the courts of a sister jurisdiction, and the failure to so respect said statute was a violation of Art. IV, § 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

In the absence of disapproval by the Congress it must be assumed that the act in question is a valid and binding act, see Coulter v. Stafford, 56 Fed. Rep. 564; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 655; Miners' Bank v. State of Iowa, 12 How. 6, and being valid, it should have been applied in this case. Each State has the unquestioned right to regulate the relations between employers and employés and to fix by legislative enactment the liabilities of the former for the negligence of the latter. South.

213 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

Pac. Co. v. Schoer, 114 Fed. Rep. 470; Buttron v. E. P. & N. E. Ry. Co., 15 Texas Court Reporter, 339.

While actions for personal injuries may be transitory, wherever determined they shall be tried according to the laws of the country wherein the act was committed; provided such laws are properly called to the attention of the court trying the case. Defendant in error had no right of action created by the laws of Texas. He secured no greater right by coming to Texas to litigate than he would have secured had he remained in New Mexico, and it was the duty of the courts of Texas to apply the laws of the Territory of New Mexico, together with all the restrictions imposed. Swisher v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 90 Pac. Rep. 812; Poff v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 55 Atl. Rep. 891; Dennis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 49 S. E. Rep. 869; Rodman v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 70 Pac. Rep. 642; "The Harrisburg," 119 U. S. 199; Coyne v. So. Pac. Co., 155 Fed. Rep. 683; Davis v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 143 Massachusetts, 301; LeForest v. Tolman, 117 Massachusetts, 109; Commonwealth v. Metropolitan R. R., 107 Massachusetts, 236; Nonce v. R. & D. R. R. Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 435; Pendleton v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 18 Pac. Rep. 57; Burns v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co., 15 N. E. Rep. 230; Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. R. Co., 194 U. S. 120.

The provision in the Constitution making it the duty of courts in one State to give full faith and credit to the decrees and legislative acts of other States is mandatory. Martin v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie R. R., 203 U. S. 284; Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640; Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 329; Banholzer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 178 U. S. 402; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657.

The Territories are included in this constitutional provision. Mockey v. Coxe, 18 How. 100; Mehlin v. Ice, 56 Fed. Rep. 12; Quesenbach v. Wagner, 41 Minnesota, 108.

On the general question of full faith and credit, see Penn. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 191 U. S. 477; Baltimore & Potomac R. R. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210.

Mr. Harry Peyton, with whom Mr. William H. Robeson and Mr. George E. Wallace were on the brief, for defendant in error:

This being a transitory cause of action, and defendant in error having complied fully with the laws of New Mexico by giving the statutory notice, the courts of the State of Texas had the right to determine its own jurisdiction and that right is not subject to revision by this court. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 99 S. W. Rep. 192; Chambers v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 207 U. S. 142; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281.

The act of the Territory of New Mexico in question, having been submitted to the Congress of the United States and by it disapproved, said act is now and has been since its passage, void and of no force and effect. Compiled Laws of 1897, pp. 43-48; 35 Stat. L., Part 1, p. 573.

That portion of the territorial law, which attempts to make it unlawful to institute or maintain a transitory cause of action outside of the Territory of New Mexico, is unconstitutional and in violation of § 2, Art. IV, of the United States Constitution, as it deprives plaintiff, and all other persons affected by said act, of privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the law of the land. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107; Willis v. Mo. Pac., 61 Texas, 432; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 256; Chambers v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 207 U. S. 142.

That portion of the New Mexico statute which requires suits to be brought in the District Court of the Territory, to the exclusion of the Federal courts, and also to the exclusion of the minor courts, discriminates not only against the courts of other States and Territories, but against the Federal courts themselves, and it is therefore unconstitutional and void. The Coyne Case, 155 Fed. Rep. 684; Ry. Co. v. Gutierre, 111 S. W. Rep. 159.

MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals for the

Fourth Supreme Judicial District of the State of Texas. The defendant in error, George A. Sowers, a citizen of Arizona, recovered judgment in the District Court of El Paso County, Texas, in the sum of $5,000, for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while employed in the service of the plaintiff in error as a brakeman in the Territory of New Mexico. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 99 S. W. Rep. 190. Subsequently leave to file a petition in error was denied by the Supreme Court of Texas, and the case was brought here by writ of error to the Court of Civil Appeals.

The defendant in error recovered because of injuries received while riding on the pilot of an engine at Gallup, New Mexico. His injuries are alleged to have been occasioned by the negligence of the railroad company in permitting its track to become soft and out of repair, permitting low joints therein, by reason of which the engine's pilot struck a frog and guard rail, and the plaintiff was injured.

We are not concerned with the questions of general law in actions of negligence which were involved in the case. The Federal question which invites our attention concerns an act of the legislature of New Mexico, passed March 11, 1903 (chapter 33, page 51, Acts of 35th Legislative Assembly of New Mexico). We give this act in full in the margin. 1

1

1 Whereas, it has become customary for persons claiming damages for personal injuries received in this Territory to institute and maintain suits for the recovery thereof in other States and Territories to the increased cost and annoyance and manifest injury and oppression of the business interests of this Territory and the derogation of the dignity of the courts thereof.

Therefore, be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of New Mexico:

SECTION 1. Hereafter there shall be no civil liability under either the common law or any statute of this Territory on the part of any person or corporation for any personal injuries inflicted or death caused by such person or corporation in this Territory, unless the person claiming damages therefor shall within ninety days after such injuries shall have been inflicted make and serve upon the person or corporation against whom the same is claimed, and at least thirty days before commencing