27 highest court of the State gives to the statute a different interpretation from that which seemed to prevail when the court below made its decision, the judgment or decree will ordinarily be reversed. If a contract when made is valid by the laws of the State as then construed by its courts, subsequent decisions altering the construction of those laws will not be followed by the Federal courts.28 This rule does not extend so as to authorize the reversal of a judgment of a State court because it gave a construction to a State statute different from one previously given by it to the same language in another statute.29 Whether a State statute has been passed 30 or repealed " by the legislature, and whether a particular corporation is a corporation of that State, are questions as to which the Federal courts will in general follow the decisions of the courts of such State. Federal courts will in actions at common law on causes of action not created by Federal statutes follow the Statutes of Limitations, even when they are applied to judgments of the 33 mission. Ankeny v. Hannon, 147 U. S. 118. So held of a divided court. Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304. But see Central R. Co. v. Wright, 164 U. S. 327. The decisions of State courts as to the interpretation of a Territorial statute in force in such State are binding on the Federal courts. Ankeny v. Clark, 148 U. S. 345. 27 Tefft v. Stern (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 755; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647. But see Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20. 28 Ohio L. Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Havemeyer v. lowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677; Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278; Carroll County v. Smith, 111 U. S. 556; Anderson v. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356. See N. O. W. W. Co. v. Southern B. Co., 36 Fed. R. 833. Where the former decisions of the State courts were against the validity of the contract and the lat 31 ter sustain it, the latter are followed. Wade v. Travis County, 174 U. S. 499, 509. 29 Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18. 30 Leavenworth County v. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70; South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260; Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667; Re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449; Fitzgerald v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 812. 31 Kibbe v. Ditto, 93 U. S. 674; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 U. S. 164; Southern Ry. Co. v. N. C. Corp. Commission, 99 Fed. R. 162. 32 Hancock v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 145 U. S. 409; Fitzgerald v. No. Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 812. For a dictum that the construction by State courts of a reservation of a right to amend corporate charters should be followed by the Federal courts, see People ex rel. Schurz v. Cook, 148 U. S. 397, 411. 33 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351; Tioga R. Co. v. Blossburg & C. R. Co., 20 Wall. 137; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647; supra, § 8. 36 38 34 42 35 43 courts of the United States, Statutes of Frauds, recording acts, statutes regulating chattel mortgages," insolvents' assignments, so far as they are not affected by the bankruptcy law, employers' liability," the measure of damages," the granting compensation for improvements made upon land in good faith," regulating the sale of land within their jurisdiction by domestic and foreign corporations; 2 making shares of stock in a domestic corporation personal property within the State,13 statutes giving a cause of action for an injury that has caused a death," and, in so far as they affect rights, the Sunday laws 45 of the State where such courts are held; and the construction given to those statutes by the courts of the State which enacted them, so far as they apply, subject to the exceptions already noted. The Federal courts will follow the decisions of the State courts as to the allowance or disallowance of interest on overdue coupons for interest; 34 Metcalf v. Watertown, 153 U. S. 671. 35 D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476; Moses v. Lawrence County Bank, 149 U. S. 298, 303. 36 Townsend v. Todd, 91 U. S. 452; Jones v. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 314; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reed, 80 Fed. R. 234. Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U. S. 266, 277; Wilson v. Perrin (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R. 629. 38 Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223; Smith M. P. Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457. So of State statutes giving preferences to claims against the estates of decedents which are presented within a certain time, Dodd v. Ghiselin, 27 Fed. R. 405; and providing that upon the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the payment of several notes, the notes shall be paid in the order in which they fall due. N. Y. Security & Tr. Co. v. Lombard, 65 Fed. R. 271; reversed upon another point (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 769. or upon damages for 40 Golden Reward Min. Co. v. Buxton Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 413. 41 McClaskey v. Barr, 62 Fed. R. 209. Cf. Santee R. C. L. Co. v. James, 50 Fed. R. 360. 42 Williams v. Gaylord (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 372. But not State statutes forbidding the enforcement of contracts by foreign corporations which have not complied with certain conditions. Sullivan v. Beck, 79 Fed. R. 200; Eastern B. & L. Ass'n v. Bedford, 88 Fed. R. 7. 43 Jellenik v. Huron Copper Min. Co., 177 U. S. 1, 13. 44 Railroad Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90; Serensen v. N. P. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 407; Holland v. Brown, 35 Fed. R. 43; Holmes v. Railway Co., 5 Fed. R. 75; s. C., 5 Fed. R. 523; Maysville St. R. & T. Co. v. Marvin (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 91; Dennick v. Central R. Co., 103 U. S. 11. 45 Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555. 46 Bolles v. Town of Amboy, 40 Fed. R. 168; Holden v. Freedman's S. & 39 Peirce v. Van Dusen (C. C. A.), Tr. Co., 100 U. S. 72. 78 Fed. R. 693. a tort; 47 and as to the rate of interest upon an obligation after it is due.48 Ordinarily they will also follow the State decisions as to the liability of municipal corporations for torts,49 and their power to contract.50 The right to issue a writ of scire facias under section 955 of the Revised Statutes, where the cause of action is not created by an act of Congress, is barred by the lapse of time prescribed by the State Statute of Limitations."1 The title to land formed by accretion,52 the rights of riparian owners in the bed of a stream, whether navigable or otherwise, the validity of tax sales," and generally all questions affecting real estate,55 in the absence of constitutional difficulties, depend upon the local rule of property. The authorities as to how far the State law of lis pendens will be followed are not harmonious.56 A State statute giving the right to two trials in an action of ejectment will be followed by the Federal 53 47 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Estill, session of land, Santee R. C. L. Co. v. 147 U. S. 591. 48 Ohio v. Frank, 103 U. S. 697. 49 Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492; Edgerton v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 27 Fed. R. 30. A municipal fire-boat was held liable in admiralty in a case where the State law gave no remedy against the city. Workman v. New York, 179 U. S. 552. 50 Claiborne County v. Burks, 111 U. S. 400; Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 440; Meriwether v. Muhlenburg Court, 120 U. S. 354, 357; Francis v. Howard County, 50 Fed. R. 44; Thompson v. Searcy County, 57 Fed. R. 1030. But see supra, note 28. 51 Browne v. Chavez, 181 U. S. 68; Butler v. Poole, 44 Fed. R. 586; Barkler v. Ladd, 3 Saw. 44; Price v. Fates, 19 A. L. J. 295; supra, § 373. 52 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 250. 53 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338; St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U. S. 566; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 242. 54 Lewis v. Monson, 151 U. S. 454; Bardon v. Land & R. Imp. Co., 157 U. S. 327. 55 Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21. For example, as to what constitutes pos James, 50 Fed. R. 360. As to the rights of abutters in streets, Lobensteine v. Union El. R. Co., 80 Fed. R. 199. But see Barber v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. R. 501. 56 The Federal courts will refuse to follow any State statutes or decisions which provide that non-resident citizens of other States who hold negotiable paper or chattels beyond the jurisdiction of the court shall have constructive notice of litigation affecting the title or validity of the same. Enfield v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680, 693. A bona fide holder of negotiable paper is not subject to the general doctrine of lis pendens. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Toledo & S. H. R. Co., 54 Fed. R. 759, 772, per Jackson, J. It has been held in the Second Circuit, that a State statute providing that purchasers without actual notice of a pending suit are not bound by the proceedings therein unless a notice of lis pendens has been filed in a designated public office, will be followed by the Federal court there held, which will require notice of the pendency of a suit in such a Federal court to be filed in such office so as to bind subsequent purchasers. courts there held." The courts of the United States in the administration of the criminal law are governed by the rules of the common law.58 § 376. New trials.-The power of a Federal court to grant a new trial cannot be enlarged or restricted by a State statute.1 It has been held that a State statute forbidding a new trial for the insufficiency of damages would be unconstitutional as a violation of the Seventh Amendment if applied to a Federal court, but that the right to two or more trials of an action for ejectment may be given3 or taken away by a State statute, which is constitutional even when applied to actions pending Jones v. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 314, per Laurence, J. Contra in the Sixth Circuit. McCloskey v. Barr, 48 Fed. R. 130, 132, per Jackson and Sage, JJ. 57 Equator M. & S. Co. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 86. But see § 376. "Statutory modifications of the common law in regard to the rights of husband and wife, as plaintiffs, in actions at law in the courts of a State, are applicable also in the United States courts held in such State, if not inconsistent with the laws of the United States or with the duties which belong to its judges and courts and the powers with which they are clothed." The Morning Journal Ass'n v. Smith (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 141, per curiam; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humble, 181 U. S. 57. A State statute providing that an assignee of a cause of action by a written instrument may sue in his own name, although the assignor retains an interest therein, will be followed by a Federal court in an action at common law. Dexter, Horton & Co. v. Sayward, 51 Fed. R. 729, 732. See supra, § 360. Judge Betts said at circuit that the adjudications of the State courts "prescribing the laws of its citizens in respect to the custody of infant children resident in the State, and the relative rights of parents in respect to such children, are rules of decision in this court in 4 al common-law cases touching these questions." In re Barry, 42 Fed. R. 113, 132; s. c., 136 U. S. 597, 624. Where the Federal court had adopted the State practice in serving process, it was held that the State decisions, holding that the sheriff's return was conclusive, must be followed. Joseph v. New Albany St. & R. M. Co., 53 Fed. R. 180. The State law as to common-law set-off was followed. Charnley v. Sibley (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 980; Fricks v. Clements, 31 Fed. R. 542. A Federal court refused to follow a State statute giving an attorney a lien on his client's cause of action so far as it was construed to require the court to go on and try a cause for the attorney's benefit after it had been settled by the parties, in ignorance of his claim. Sherry v. Oceanic S. Nav. Co., 72 Fed. R. 565. 58 Howard v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 986. § 376. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581; Fishbrom v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 60. 2 Hughey v. Sullivan, 80 Fed. R. 72. 3 Equator Co. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 86. As to costs, see Shreve v. Cheesman (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 785. 4 Campbell v. Iron-Silver Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 643. when it was passed, and will be followed by the courts of the United States.6 11 The Federal courts have power to grant new trials after a trial by jury "for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law." A motion for a new trial must be made or noticed for argument during the term at which the trial took place, or by special leave of the court granted, upon a petition filed within forty-two days after the entry of judgment. A motion for a new trial upon exceptions, or because the verdict was against the evidence or against the weight of evidence, or because of excessive or insufficient damages, is regularly argued before the judge who tried the case." He may, if he chooses, ask another judge to assist him in rendering his decision; 10 and the latter may then hear the argument; " but neither party has the right to demand the participation of another judge in the decision.12 It has been held that the power to try a case carries with it as an incident the power to hear and decide a motion for a new trial,13 but that an order denying a motion for a new trial is void if signed by a judge after his successor has been appointed and qualified, and notice of this has been given to the judge who signs the order. The power of Congress to authorize such a re-examination of the proceedings upon the trial has been questioned.15 As a general rule, on a motion for a new trial affidavits of jurors may be received to support but not to impeach the verdict.16 "A juryman may 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.; Equator Co. v. Hall, 106 U.S. 86. After one trial and an order for a new trial in a State court, it was held that the plaintiff could not discontinue and sue in the Federal court. Hyatt v. Challiss, 55 Fed. R. 267. 7 U. S. R. S., § 726; Clark v. Sohier, 1 W. & M. 368; Milliken v. Ross, 9 Fed. R. 855. 8 U. S. R. S., § 987. See § 380. Fed. R. 176. 14 133; Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R. 176. 12 Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R. 176. 13 Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. R. 98, 105. 14 U. S. v. Alexander, 46 Fed. R. 728. 15 Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R. 176. Cf. Metropolitan R. Co. v. Moore, 121 U. S. 558, 573. 16 Hyman v. Eames, 41 Fed. R. 676, 677; Chandler v. Thompson, 30 Fed. 9 Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 R. 38, 45; Glaspell v. N. Pac. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 903, 909; Fuller v. Fletcher, 44 Fed. R. 34, 39; Biggs v. Barry, 2 Curtis, 259; Ewer's Adm'r v. National Imp. Co., 63 Fed. R. 562. 10 Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R. 176; Adams v. Spangler, 17 Fed. R. 133. 11 Adams v. Spangler, 17 Fed. R. |