State laws by State courts govern the United States court,1 unless the law should be of a general nature, not confined to the locality or State. IV. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS. Whether decisions of the national courts are to be regarded as paramount rules of law or not, depends in some respects upon the character of the subject matter of the cause in which they are rendered, and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction of the action. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts, as where the jurisdiction of the Federal courts rests upon the citizenship of the parties, and in which the State laws are administered, then if the questions involved are such as in regard to which the State decisions are deferred to by the Federal court, it results therefrom that the dignity and force of the judgment as a rule of law, as also the validity and effect thereof, is only such as is accorded to judgments of State courts, under similar circumstances.2 V. JURISDICTION, TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS IN ONE STATE. When a State is divided into two districts, and a United States Circuit Court is held in each district, a defendant who is a citizen of such State may be sued in either district, if found and served therein, by a citizen of a different State. It is no defense as against the jurisdiction of the court that the defendant resides in the other district than the one in which he is sued. The fact of being found and served within the district in which he is sued brings the case within the very language of the act of the law. It takes it out of the prohibition of the judiciary act, that "no civil suit shall be brought in the courts of the United States, against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process, in any other district than that whereof he is 378; Haussknecht v. Claypool, 1 'Gut v. Minnesota, 9 Wall. 35; King v. Wilson, 1 Dill. 555; Polk v. Wendal, 9 Cr. 87; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 367; Bank of U. S. v. Daniel, 12 Pet. 33; 2 Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130. an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ." In all cases on contract the suit may be brought in the circuit court of the district wherein the defendant is found. If sued out of the district in which he lives, he may object, but this is a privilege which he may waive. When the jurisdiction of the person will enable the court to give effect to its judgment or decree, it may be exercised; but if the subject matter is local, and is situated beyond the limits of the district, the circuit court sitting in such district has no jurisdiction thereof. Actions for real property, or ejectment for possession. thereof, or trespass quare clausum fregit, or trespass upon real property, in any manner, will not lie in any other jurisdiction than where the real property, sued for or injured, is situated.3 VI. JURISDICTION IN NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS. The jurisdiction of national and State courts in cases of naturalization is concurrent, although the proceedings are under the laws of the former. The jurisdiction was originally conferred upon the supreme, superior, district or circuit courts of the several States, and of territorial districts of the United States, and upon the circuit and district courts of the United States, concurrently. But doubts having arisen as to the meaning of the term district courts of the States, it was subsequently enacted that every court of record in any individual State, having common law jurisdiction and a seal and clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within the meaning of said original enactment. Thus it is that all State courts of record, having a seal and clerk or prothonotary, have, with the United States territorial courts, and United States district and circuit courts, jurisdiction, under the acts of Congress, of naturalization cases. The authority to provide by law for naturalization of foreigners, or others, is exclusive in the Congress of the United States. By adoption of the United States Constitution, the naturalization laws of the several States ceased to exist." McMicken v. Webb, 11 Pet. 25. 2 North. Ind. R. R. Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. R. Co., 15 How. 233. 3 Ibid. 42 U. S. Stat. at Large, 153, § 1. 7 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 260. U. S. v. Villato, 2 Dall. 370. CHAPTER VI. COMMON LAW, CIVIL LAW, AND LAW OF STATE AND NATIONAL COURTS. I. THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW AS STATE Laws. II. III. IV. V. UNITED STATES COURTS ADMINISTER STATE LAWS. VI. NATIONAL POWERS AND COURTS NOT AFFECTED BY STATE LAWS. I. THE COMMON LAW AND CIVIL LAW AS STATE LAWS. Though the common law is presumed to exist in most of the States, as to general principles, if nothing be shown to the contrary; yet it is not presumed to exist without statutory changes and modifications.2 The extent to which the common law prevails, and the modifications thereof in each particular State, depend upon the local constitution and laws thereof.3 But as to those States now existing where their were established civil governments and codes, or systems of domestic law, in which the civil law prevailed, as for instance, Louisiana, Texas and Florida, prior to their becoming Territories or States of the Union, the common law is not presumed to prevail therein.4 If, on the trial of a cause elsewhere, the question arises as to the law of one of these States in which the common law is not presumed to prevail, the presumption in such case is, if nothing 'Crouch v. Hall, 15 Ill. 263; Ellis v. White, 25 Ala. 540; Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226; Coburn v. Harvey, 18 Wis. 147; Hamilton . Kneeland, 1 Nev. 40; State v. Cummings, 33 Conn. 260; White . Knapp, 47 Barb. 549; McDougald v. Carey, 38 Ala. 320; Miles . Collins, 1 Met. (Ky.) 308; Reese v. Mutual Benefit Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 516, 522; Plumleigh v. Cook, 13 to the contrary is shown, that the law is the same as in the State where the trial is proceeding.1 If the contrary is insisted upon by either party, those who assert the existence of the law must plead and prove it. 2 II. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS ADMINISTER THE STATE LAWS. We have no national common law, or common law of the United States in their united capacity as a nation. The Federal courts administer the laws of the several States, and of the national Congress; the common law, therefore, when administered in the national courts, is administered as it exists in a more or less modified form in the State, when pertinent to the controversy.4 The circuit courts of the United States are bound to take notice of the general laws of the several States. They are created by Congress to administer the laws of all the States of the Union in cases to which these laws respectively apply. Their jurisdiction extends to many cases arising under State laws. This State jurisprudence is not a foreign one, to be proven in court in the ordinary manner of proving the laws of foreign countries in courts of justice, but is to be judicially taken notice of in the same manner by the United States courts as the laws of the United States are by them taken notice of. But this rule of law applies only in law cases, and not to proceedings in chancery." 1 Norris v. Harris, 15 Cal. 226; Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447. But no such presumption arises in regard to the statute laws of another State. McCulloch v. Norwood, 58 N.Y. 562, 567. 2 Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447; Story's Conf. of Laws, § 638; Greenleaf on Evidence, § 486, et seq. It would seem that the same rule which governs the proof of laws of foreign countries in our State courts would also govern the proof of laws of sister States. As to how foreign laws are proved see Hall v. Costello, 48 N. H. 176; Barrows v. Downs, 9 R. I. 446; Greenleaf on Evidence, § 488; Sedgwick on Construct. of Statutes, 93 et seq.; Wharton's Conf. of Laws, § 771 et seq.; Smith's Statutory Law, Chap. 21. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591: Lor man v. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137; People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 374; sec ante, Chap. 5, § I. p 29. 4 Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591; Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568; People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. 374; Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137; see ante, Chap. 5, § I. p. 29. "Owings . Hull, 9 Pet. 607; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 513, 518; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65, 80; Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 203, 205; Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. 497. And where the statute law of a State renders an unsworn plea of non est factum inadmissible in a State court, the courts of the United States, sitting in such State, will follow the State statute upon that subject.1 But in cases involving general commercial law, the Federal courts construe the law for themselves, and do not defer to the State court decisions." III. BUT NOT AS TO FORMS AND PLEADINGS, UNLESS ADOPTED BY THEM. Statutes of the States in proprio vigore are of no force so far as regards the forms of suits, modes of proceedings, or pleadings, in courts of the United States. Congress has exclusive authority over these subjects. So far as by act of Congress State laws have been adopted, or under authority of acts of Congress have been adopted by these courts, they are obligatory, and no further. No court, however, of the United States may adopt such as are in conflict with the acts of Congress upon the subject of jurisdiction, forms, practice or proceedings in the courts of the United States. A broad distinction exists in this respect as respects statutes which are rules of right and property, and such as go to the remedial forms, proceedings and practices of the courts. The former are the law of the forum of the United States court, in any State, when not in conflict with the national laws or Constitution, and will not only be administered, but will be taken notice of by the courts.4 Thus, State statutes which require suits on bills or notes, in the county where the drawers live, or where the first endorser lives, and similar requirements will be disregarded as utterly incompatible and repugnant to the organization and jurisdiction of the United States courts; and so of State laws requiring the joinder of both drawers and endorsers of bills of exchange in one and the same action, for the law of v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212, 222; Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. 654; Russell V. Southard, 12 How. 139. 1 Bell v. Mayor, etc., of Vicksburg, 23 How. 443. 2 Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 3 Sum. 270; S. C., 13 Pet. 415; Austen v. Miller, 5 McLean, 135; 8. O., 13 How. 218; Browning v. Andrews, 3 McLean, 576. Keary v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank of Memphis, 16 Pet. 89. 4 Brine v. Insurance Co., 6 Otto, 627, and approved in Orvis v. Powell (Oct. Term Sup. Ct. of U. S.,1878); 2 Chicago Law Journal, 190. |