Again, in Polk's Lessee v. Wendell14 the court say: "The sole object for which jurisdiction of cases between citizens of different States is vested in courts of the United States, is to secure to all the administration of justice upon the same principles on which it is administered between citizens of the same State. Hence, this court has never hesitated to conform to the settled doctrines of the States on landed property, where they are fixed, and can be satisfactorily ascertained; nor would it ever be led to deviate from them in any case that bore the semblance of impartial justice.” 15 14 5 Wh. 293; 5 L. ed. 92. 15 In Re Duncan (139 U. S. 449; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; 35 L. ed. 219) the contention was raised that a certain law appearing upon the statute books had not been constitutionally passed and was, therefore, not valid. As to this the Supreme Court of the United States said: "It is unnecessary to enter upon an examination of the rulings in the different States upon the question whether a statute duly authenticated, approved and enrolled can be impeached by resort to the journals of the legislature or other evidence for the purpose of establishing that it was not passed in the manner prescribed by the state Constitution. The decisions are numerous, and the results reached fail of uniformity. The courts of the United States necessarily adopt the adjudication of the state courts on the subject." Citing South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260; 24 L. ed. 154; Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667; 26 L. ed. 1204; Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359; 25 L. ed. 185. In Daly v. James (8 Wh. 495; 5 L. ed. 670) Justice Johnson in a dissenting opinion says: "Upon the question so solemnly pressed upon this court in the argument how far the decision of the court of Pennsylvania ought to have been considered as obligatory in this court, I would be understood as entertaining the following views: As precedents entitled to the highest respect the decisions of the state courts will always be considered; and in all cases of local law we acknowledge an established and uniform course of decisions of the state courts in the respective States as the law of this court; that is to say, that such decisions will be as obligatory upon this court as they would be acknowledged to be in their own courts." In a dissenting opinion Justice Field in B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Baugh (149 U. S. 368; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 914; 37 L. ed. 772) declares: "The theory upon which inferior courts of the United States take jurisdiction within the several States is, when a right is not claimed under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, that they are bound to enforce as between the parties the law of the State. It was never supposed that upon matters arising within the State any law other than that of the State would be enforced, or that any attempt would be made to enforce any other law. It was never supposed that the law of the State would be enforced § 592. Rule not One of Constitutional Necessity: Exceptions. From the quotations which have been made, the general rule governing the construction of state law by the federal courts is sufficiently clear. We have now to consider the exceptions which have been made to its application. First of all it is to be observed that the rule itself would appear to be one not so much of imperative constitutional necessity, as of comity adopted by the federal courts from a proper sense of the respect due to the States whose law they are supposed to administer, and that, therefore, the provision of section 721 of the Revised Statutes states a purely statutory and not a constitutional requirement. § 593. Equity. Even this statutory requirement, it is to be observed, is a limited one, its application being limited to trials at common law, the entire field of equity procedure thus being omitted from its control.16 In the comparatively early case of Boyle v. Zacharie" the Supreme Court said: "The acts of Maryland regulating the proceedings on injunctions, and other chancery proceedings, and giving certain effects to them in courts of law, are of no force in relation to the courts of the United States. differently by the federal courts sitting in the State and the state courts; that there would be one law when a suitor went into the state courts, and another law when the suitor went into the federal courts, in relation to a cause of action arising within the State,- a result which must necessarily follow if the law of the State can be disregarded upon any view which the federal judges may take of what the law of the State ought to be rather than what it is." The whole question of the binding force upon the federal courts of state laws as interpreted by the state courts is considered in the Dred Scott case (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393; 15 L. ed. 691), a majority of the court agree. ing that the court was bound by the last decision of the Missouri court as to the effect of Scott's temporary residence in a free State. 16 By an act of May 8, 1792, it was provided, that the procedure in equity cases in the federal courts should be according to the peculiar principles, rules, and usages of equity as distinguished from common law courts. 176 Pet. 635; 8 L. ed. 527. "The chancery jurisdiction given by the Constitution and laws of the United States is the same in all the States of the Union, and the rule of decision is the same in all. In the exercise of that jurisdiction the courts of the United States are not governed by the State practice; but the act of Congress of 1792 (ch. 36) has provided that the modes of proceeding in equity suits shall be according to the principles, rules and usages which belong to courts of equity, as contradistinguished from courts of law. And the settled doctrine of this court is, that the remedies in equity are to be administered, not according to the state practice but according to the practice of courts of equity in the parent country, as contradistinguished from courts of law, subject of course to the provisions of the act of Congress, and to such alterations and rules as in the exercise of the powers delegated by those acts, the courts of the United States may, from time to time, prescribe." 18 18 Cf. Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139; 13 L. ed. 927; Bein v. Heath, 12 How. 168; 13 L. ed. 939; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; 19 L. ed. 260; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wh. 212; 4 L. ed. 372; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wh. 108; 4 L. ed. 526; McConihay v. Wright, 121 U. S. 201; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 940; 30 L. ed. 932; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268; 14 L. ed. 140. In Neves v. Scott (13 How. 268; 14 L. ed. 140) the court say: "Whenever a case in equity may arise and be determined under the judicial power of the United States, the same principles of equity must be applied to it, and it is for the courts of the United States, and for this court in the last resort, to decide what those principles are, and to apply such of them to each particular case, as they may find justly applicable thereto. These principles may take part of the law of a State, or they may have been modified by its legislation, or usages, or they may never have existed in its jurispru dence. Instances of each kind may now be found in the several States. But in all the States, the equity law, recognized by the Constitution and by Acts of Congress, and modified by the latter, is administered by the courts of the United States, and upon appeal by this court." In Payne v. Hook (7 Wall. 425; 19 L. ed. 260) the court, with reference to the argument that inasmuch as under the law of the State a chancery court had not jurisdiction in the premises, the federal court sitting as such had not, said: "If legal remedies are sometimes modified in the federal courts to suit the changes in the laws of the States, and the practice of their courts, it is not so with the equitable. The equity jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts is the same that the High Court of Chancery in England possesses; is subject to neither limitation nor restraint by state legislation, and is uniform throughout the different States of the Union." § 592. Rule not One From the quotat governing the cons sufficiently clear. have been made to First of all it i to be one not so: § 593. Equity. limited one, i In the co preme Cou the procee and giving in relation differently cause of follow if federal ju what it is The w laws as (Scott v ing tha the effe 16 By cases rules. ence to the federal legislative authority over the rules of evidence to be followed in the federal courts, it is declared in Potter v. National Bank:20 "It is quite true that the 34th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789-preserved totidem verbis, in section 721 of the present revision of the statutes - has been construed as requiring the federal courts, in all civil cases at common law, not within the exceptions named, to observe, as rules of decision, the rules of evidence prescribed by the laws of the States in which such courts respectively sit. But that section of the Act of 1789, as does section 721 of the Revised Statutes, expressly excepts from its operations cases Where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States otherwise provide.' We have seen that the existing statutes of the United States do 'otherwise provide,' in that they forbid the exclusion of a witness upon the ground that he is a party to or interested in the issue, in any civil action whatever pending in a federal court, except in a certain class of actions, which do not embrace the one now before us. In all other respects,' that is, in all cases not provided for by the Statutes of the United States, the laws of the State, in which the federal court sits, constitute rules of decision as to the competency of witnesses in all actions at common law, in equity or in admiralty. It is clear, therefore, that the law of Illinois can have no bearing upon a case which, as here, is embraced or has been provided for by the federal statute." 21 Section 914 of the Revised Statutes provides that in the federal courts in civil causes other than equity and admiralty, "the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding" shall conform "as near as may be" to the existing practice in the States in which they sit. There is thus left, even as to these causes, opportunity for variance of practice whether because of 20 102 U. S. 163; 26 L. ed. 111. 21 There would seem to be a corresponding inability upon the part of Congress to fix the rules of evidence and procedure of state courts. Thus, for example, while it is competent for Congress to declare that certain unstamped documents shall not be received as evidence in the federal courts, they might still be so received in the state courts. Latham v. Smith, 45 Ill. 293; Bowlin v. Commonwealth, 2 Bush, 5. |