necessarily be construed and applied by the court exercising jurisdiction, federal or state. If it be federal law, whether constitutional, treaty, statutory or unwritten (decisions of courts), that law must be construed and applied by the particular court, federal or state. Hence the federal courts follow state laws whenever those laws constitute the governing rules applicable to the particular facts under examination. Though the federal statute provides that laws of the states shall be rules of decision in common law cases in the federal courts,58 this would necessarily be the rule without the statute.59 In admiralty cases, however, the state laws do not apply,60 except as to the regulation of pilots, and until recently as to supplies for vessels; nor do such laws or decisions apply in equity cases, except where they constitute rules of property,62 or where state constitutions, statutes or other local laws are construed. The statute does not reach equity or admiralty suits.

63

61

Commercial law and general jurisprudence. The federal courts are not bound to follow state decisions on the commercial law, or bills and notes,64 the interpretation of the common law,65 the law of municipal

57 Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 541 (U. S.), 8 L. Ed. 751.

58 U. S. Rev. Stats., § 721.

59 Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 492 (U. S.), 7 L. Ed. 496. 60 The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 1, 13 Sup. Ct. 498, 37 L. Ed. 345.

61 Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 8 Sup. Ct. 974, 31 L. Ed. 795. 62 Same. C. & N. W. R. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 (U. S.), 20 L. Ed. 571.

62 Bacon v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207, 221, 16 Sup. Ct. 1023, 41 L. Ed. 132. For exceptions see this section later.

64 Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 Sup. Ct. 10, 27 L. Ed. 359. 65 Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564, 31 L. Ed. 508.

bonds,

66

negligence and who are fellow servants," and the construction of contracts,68 these being matters of general law.

Change of decision on local constitution or statute. Where bonds or other municipal obligations, which are held by bona fide purchasers, have been issued after the local law has been held valid, and subsequent decisions hold the law invalid, the federal courts will follow the former ruling," nor are they bound to follow such a decision made after the controversy arose.70

Local construction of constitution and laws as to land titles. State decisions in regard to the rules of property therein are followed by federal courts, which administer the local law as if they were state courts. A similar rule applies to local rules of personal property, based either upon statutes or decisions."

71

72

Rights of action under state statutes. Whenever the federal courts may properly take jurisdiction, they may enforce causes of action arising out of state statutes, even though the remedy is expressly confined to the state courts.73 An enlargement of equitable rights made by a state statute may be sued

66 Pleasant v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., 138 U. S. 67, 11 Sup. Ct. 215, 34 L. Ed. 864.

67 Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U. S. 213, 25 L. Ed. 612.

68 United States ex rel. Amy v. Burlington, 154 U. S. 568, 14 Sup. Ct. 1212, 19 L. Ed. 495.

69 Folsom v. Township 96, 159 U. S. 611, 16 Sup. Ct. 174, 40 L. Ed. 278. 70 Carroll Co. v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556, 4 Sup. Ct. 539, 28 L. Ed. 517.

71 Slaughter v. Glenn, 98 U. S. 242, 25 L. Ed. 122.

72 Dooley v. Pease, 180 U. S. 126, 21 Sup. Ct. 329, 45 L. Ed. 457.

73 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 (U. S.), 20 L. Ed.

571.

in a federal court.74 Thus, when the parties in litigation are citizens of different states, a federal court may quiet the title to land under an equitable remedy given by the local statute;75 but the rule is otherwise when the state statute allows a suit in equity where an action at law would lie at the common law; the right of jury trial being infringed in that case.76

41. Conformity with local practice. Prior to 1872 the federal courts followed the common law as to pleading, practice and procedure in legal actions, the equity practice as modified by the equity rules made by the Supreme Court in equity, and the admiralty practice in suits in admiralty and seizures of property on land or non-admiralty waters (nonnavigable waters). By the Conformity Act of 187277 it was provided that the practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding in civil cases other than equity and admiralty should conform, as nearly as might be, to those of the states where the federal courts were held.78 In criminal cases the federal courts follow generally the common law practice." A large number of exceptions to the Act of 1872 have been made by the federal decisions. In general it may be said that all matters relating to the personal conduct and administration of the judge, such as charging the jury, are not practice or procedure,s

80

74 Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 3 Sup. Ct. 495, 28 L. Ed. 52. 75 Bardon v. L. & R. I. Co., 157 U. S. 327, 16 Sup. Ct. 650, 39 L. Ed. 719. 76 Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 58, 15 Sup. Ct. 24, 39 L. Ed. 69.

77 The Carpenter Act, U. S. Rev. Stats., § 914.

78 Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, 23 L. Ed. 898.

79 Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429. 80 Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426, 442, 23 L. Ed. 286.

nor does the statute apply to proceedings after judgment.81

Conformity to local rules as to attachments. It is provided that in common law cases the plaintiff in the federal court shall be entitled to like remedies, by attachment or other process against property, as exist in the state where the court is held, and such local remedies may be adopted by general court rules.82 It is also provided that federal attachments shall be dissolved by facts which would operate as a dissolution by the local laws.83

Federal executions. Similar remedies by execution or other means of enforcing judgments at law are also adopted.84 Local rules as to stay of execution are followed,85 appraisal of property taken in execution, discharges of persons arrested,87 jail limits,88 and imprisonment for debt.89

Federal judgments as liens. Judgments and decrees of the federal courts are made liens on property throughout the state in the same manner and to the same extent and under the same conditions as if rendered by a state court. If the local law requires recording or docketing before the lien attaches, the above provision is applicable only when the state law authorizes the recording or docketing

81 Wright v. Bales, 2 Black 535 (U. S.), 17 L. Ed. 264.

of federal judgments. Prior to 1888 the liens of federal judgments were co-extensive with the territorial jurisdiction of the court which rendered them. In that year Congress passed a bill in substance as above stated, but provided in section three that it should not be necessary to record or docket a judgment in the county in which it was rendered. This section was repealed by the Act of 1912. The result is that where no provision for docketing federal judgments is made by state law, they are liens, as they were before 1888. When such a provision is made they are not liens unless docketed.00

42. The common law in the federal courts; civil cases. The Constitution, in extending the federal judicial power to cases in law and equity arising under federal law, and to cases between citizens of different states, necessarily referred to the common law, without expressly adopting it." It was brought to this country as far as applicable to our condition, and as thus modified, and as changed by local statutes and decisions, is now in force generally in the states, except Louisiana, whose jurisprudence is founded on the Civil Law.93 "It is clear there can be no common law of the United States." 94 The trials at common law mentioned in section nine refer to the distinction between law and equity, which has been quite fully preserved in the federal system. Jury trials in legal

02

90 25 Stats. at Large, p. 357; 37 Stats. at Large, p. 311; Dartmouth Sav. Bank v. Bates, 44 Fed. 546.

91 Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 23 L. Ed. 346.

92 United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361 (U. S.), 13 L. Ed. 1023.

93 Spear, Federal Judiciary (1st ed.), p. 722.

94 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (U. S.), 8 L. Ed. 1055.