reached this conclusion because of § 905 of the Revised Statutes, above quoted. In considering the constitutional power to pass this act, speaking for the court, the learned justice said (p. 9): "So far as this statutory provision relates to the effect to be given to the judicial proceedings of the States, it is founded on article IV, § 1, of the Constitution, which, however, does not extend to the other cases covered by the statute. The power to prescribe what effect shall be given to the judicial proceedings of the courts of the United States is conferred by other provisions of the Constitution, such as those which declare the extent of the judicial power of the United States, which authorize all legislation necessary and proper for executing the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, and which declare the supremacy of the authority of the National Government within the limits of the Constitution. As part of its general authority, the power to give effect to the judgments of its courts is coextensive with its territorial jurisdiction. That the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States, results from the right of exclusive legislation over the district which the Constitution has given to Congress.'

This language is equally applicable to legislative acts of the Territory, as the passage of such laws is the exercise of authority under the United States. New Mexico ex rel. McLean v. Railroad Company, 203 U. S. 38, 47.

Section 906 of the Revised Statutes requires every court within the United States to give the same faith and credit to the acts of the Territory as they have by law or usage in the courts of the Territory from which they are taken. The Federal question then is, Did the court of Texas, in denying any force and validity to the New Mexico statute, violate this requirement of the Federal statute (§ 906) passed under the power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution?

Preliminary to the consideration of the effect of the statute in other jurisdictions, we may notice a question made as to the power of the Territory to pass it.

VOL. CCXIII-5

Sections 7 and 17 of the organic act of the Territory of New Mexico provide (Act of September 9, 1850, c. 49, 9 Stat. 446, 449; Comp. Laws New Mexico, 1897, p. 43):

"SEC. 7. That the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act.

"SEC. 17. That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of New Mexico as elsewhere within the United States."

It is contended by the defendant in error that the effect of these statutes is to put the common law, regulating the recovery of actions for personal injuries, in force in the Territory, and that there is no authority to pass laws regulating recovery for injuries of the character attempted. But we are of opinion that the legislative power conferred, extending to all rightful subjects of legislation, did give the Territory authority to legislate concerning the subject of personal injuries, and to pass laws respecting rights of action of that character. It is contended for the plaintiff in error that this statute of New Mexico is creative of a new statutory cause of action, taking the place of any common law rights and remedies, and that in such cases it is within the legislative authority to make laws local and exclusive in their character.

In many States it has been held that such causes of action, created by state statute, could not be sued upon in other jurisdictions. This doctrine is, however, contrary to the holding of this court in Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11. Mr. Justice Miller, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, said, p. 18:

"It would be a very dangerous doctrine to establish that in all cases where the several States have substituted the statute for the common law, the liability can be enforced in no other State but that where the statute was enacted and the transaction occurred."

An action for personal injuries is universally held to be transitory, and maintainable wherever a court may be found that has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Rorer on Interstate Law, 154, 155; McKenna v. Fiske, 1 How. 242; Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, 18.

Undoubtedly, where the cause of action is created by the State, as is the action to recover for death by wrongful injury, there is no objection to the enforcement of the law because it arose in another jurisdiction. Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Babcock, 154 U. S. 190; Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 168 U. S. 445, 449. Dealing with this subject in Mexican National R. R. Co. v. Slater, 194 U. S. 120, 126, this court said:

"As Texas has statutes which give an action for wrongfully causing death, of course there is no general objection of policy to enforcing such a liability there, although it arose in another jurisdiction. Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 168 U. S. 445. But when such a liability is enforced in a jurisdiction foreign to the place of the wrongful act, obviously that does not mean that the act in any degree is subject to the lex fori, with regard to either its quality or its consequences. On the other hand, it equally little means that the law of the place of the act is operative outside its own territory. The theory of the foreign suit is that although the act complained of was subject to no law having force in the forum, it gave rise to an obligation, an obligatio, which, like other obligations, follows the person, and may be enforced wherever the person may be found. Stout v. Wood, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 71; Dennick v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 11, 18. But as the only source of this obligation is the law of the place of the act, it follows that the law determines not merely the existence of the obligation, Smith v. Condry, 1 How. 28, but equally determines its extent. It seems to us unjust to allow a plaintiff to come here absolutely depending on the foreign law for the foundation of his case, and yet to deny the defendant the benefit of whatever limitations on his liability that law would impose."

It is then the settled law of this court that in such statutory

actions the law of the place is to govern in enforcing the right in another jurisdiction, but such actions may be sustained in other jurisdictions when not inconsistent with any local policy of the State wherein the suit is brought. Stewart v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 445, supra.

Assuming that the Territory may legislate upon this subject, when we turn to the act what do we find to be its provisions? Section 1 of the act provides that "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 certain things are done. It is required that the person injured shall make and serve, within 90 days after such injuries shall have been inflicted, and 30 days before beginning suit, an affidavit upon the person against whom damages are claimed; which affidavit shall state the name and address of the affiant, the character and extent of such injuries so far as the same may be known to the affiant, the way or manner in which such injuries were caused, the names and addresses of such witnesses to the happening of the facts causing the injuries as may be known to the affiant at the time, and the section concludes: "and unless the person so claiming such damages shall also commence an action to recover the same within one year after such injuries occur, in the District Court of this Territory in and for the county of this Territory where the claimant or person against whom such claim is asserted resides, or, in event such claim asserted against a corporation, in the county in this Territory where such corporation has its principal place of business, and said suit after having been commenced shall not be dismissed by plaintiff unless by written consent of the defendant filed in the case, or for good cause shown to the court; it being hereby expressly provided and understood that such right of action is given only on the understanding that the foregoing conditions precedent are made a part of the law under which right to recover can exist for such injuries, except as herein otherwise provided."

This section does not undertake to create a new and statutory cause of action, but refers to the common law or previous statutes of the Territory governing actions for personal injuries or wrongful death. It puts a condition upon such actions, requiring the making of the affidavit and the service thereof, within 90 days after the injury and 30 days before commencing suit, and provides that such cause of action shall be prosecuted within one year, and undertakes to make the same maintainable only in the District Court of the Territory. If such an action for personal injuries were tried in the Territory it would be controlled by common law principles, so far as the right of recovery is concerned, provided, of course, that the statutory requirements as to the affidavit and the time of beginning the action had been complied with. At the trial counsel for plaintiff in error stated: "It is admitted that the common law is in force in the Territory of New Mexico, and that the accident happened in the Territory of New Mexico."

Such suit at common law might be maintained in any court of general jurisdiction, where service could be had upon the defendant. The question here is, when such court does entertain a suit of that kind what is it required to do in order to give effect to the statutory requirements of § 906 of the Revised Statutes?

The object of this statute of the United States was to give to the public acts of each Territory the same faith and credit in every court within the United States as they are entitled to, by law, in the Territory where they are enacted. Before this statute the effect which would have been given to the judgment of the court of a Territory rested alone upon principles of comity. These acts are now, and by force of the statute, to be given the force and effect that they would be given in the Territory which passed them, that is, the cause of action is not to be enlarged, when regulated by the legislation of a Territory, because the party sees fit to go to another jurisdiction where he can obtain service upon the defendant, and there prosecute his suit.

In the present case, in determining the merits of the cause of action, common law principles were applied in the Texas court