jurisdiction as to citizens of different States excepts suits for the contents of promissory notes or other choses in action in favor of an assignee, unless the suit might have been brought in such court if no assignment or endorsement had been made - except as to foreign bills of exchange. For in such cases it may often occur that the residence and citizenship of these parties are not such as to render suit against them all, in the same action, practicable in the United States court.1 IV. PROCESSES OF STATE COURTS MAY BE ADOPTED. The processes and practice of the highest State courts of original jurisdiction in proceedings at law are likewise conformed to by the United States circuit courts sitting in the several States, so far as the same are or shall be adopted by the said circuit courts.2 But the power to adopt the same is not vested in a district judge sitting alone, as judge of a circuit court, except in those States where there may be no full circuit court, wherein the district judge and court exercises the functions and jurisdiction as well of the circuit court as of the district court.3 V. RULINGS OF THE COURT. WHEN FOLLOWED. The construction put upon the constitutions and State laws of the several States, by their own courts, will be mutually respected and followed in the courts of each other, whenever those constructions and laws come under their judicial consideration in matters involving the same points thus adjudicated.4 So, too, as between the national courts and State courts. The former, as a general rule, follow the local decisions of the highest State courts of the State wherein they are sitting, when such decisions are settled and uniform and have become a rule of property, especially so, as to lands, in regard to the constructions of State constitutions, statutes, and unwritten laws, if the same do not conflict with the Constitution, treaties or laws of the 1 Brine v. Insurance Co., 6 Otto, 627, and approved in Orvis v. Powell (Oct. Term Sup. Ct. of U. S., 1878); 2 Chic. Law Journal, 190. 2 Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303. 8 Ibid. 4 Brown v. Phillipps, 16 Iowa, 210; Franklin v. Twogood, 25 Iowa, 520; Thompson v. Alger, 12 Met. 428; Sedgwick on Const. of Statutes, 362, 363. 2 United States. But the national courts will not change, as a general principle, with local changes. On the contrary, will, in questions affecting constitutional rights, or remedies of creditors, although involving State constitutions or statutes, judge for themselves, regardless of all such State court constructions as may amount to a denial of remedy; and so, too in matters of contract involving such statutory or constitutional construction.3 So, also, State court decisions and constructions of instruments on common law principles, are not binding on the Federal courts as rules of decision. Nor when made in reference to the general commercial law, if in contravention thereof. 5 VI. NATIONAL POWERS AND JURISDICTION NOT AFFECTED BY STATE LAWS. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts cannot be restricted or enlarged by State legislation." This is the case, too, whether viewed in relation to actions and suits originally brought therein or in reference to such as are first brought in a State court, and are removed to the United States Circuit Court under some of the acts of Congress allowing such removal." National Powers not Affected by State Laws. State laws cannot control the rightful powers of the national government, or 'Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119, 127; Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291, 298; Shelly . Guy, 11 Wheat. 361, 367; Taylor v. Brown, 5 Cr. 234, 255; McKeen v. Delancy, 5 Cr. 22; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cr. 148, 167; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; McCutchen v. Marshall, 8 Pet. 220; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 7 How. 812; Piqua Branch Bank . Knoop, 16 How. 369; Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 1; Middleton v. McGrew, 23 How. 45; Bank of Hamilton e. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492; U. S. v. Morri son, 4 Pet. 124; Henderson v. Griffin, 5 Pet. 151; Thompson v. Phillips, Baldwin, 246; Brine v. Ins. Co., 6 Otto, 627; Orvis . Powell (Sup. Ct. of U. S., Oct. Term, 1878); 2 Chicago Law Journal, 190. the proper discharge of the official functions of Federal officers or courts; they have no operation of their own mere force upon the process or proceedings of the courts of the United States, as to remedies or practice, and are only obligatory so far as adopted by Congress, or, under the process acts of 1792 and subsequent acts upon the same subjects, by these courts themselves; and these same courts have power to alter and amend the rules of process, as well as the manner of proceedings in court. So, also, as to jurisdiction between citizens of different States, it is a well settled principle that the jurisdiction of the United States courts over controversies between citizens of different States cannot be impaired by the laws of the States prescribing the modes of redress in their courts, or regulating the distribution of State judicial powers.3 'Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329; Wayman . Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; Bank of U. S. v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. 51; Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195; Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118. Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170; Union Bank o. Jolly, 18 How. 503; Suydam CHAPTER VII. INTER-STATE EQUITY JURISDICTON AND PRACTICE. 1. CONCURRENT STATE AND NATIONAL EQUITY JURISDICTION. II. EQUITY PRACTICE AND RULES IN UNITED STATES COURTS. III. JURISDICTION IN UNITED STATES COURTS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. IV. ENJOINING OF JUDGMENT OF UNITED STATES COURT IN SAME COURT. V. STATE COURT MAY ACT BY INSTRUCTION UPON THE PERSON Of DefendANT, TO PREVENT SUIT IN ANOTHER STATE. I. CONCURRENT STATE AND NATIONAL EQUITY JURISDICTION. The circuit courts of the United States have a general equity jurisdiction within the rightful sphere of their authority as Federal courts in all cases where a plain, adequate and complete remedy cannot be had at law;1 and this jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the State courts in all suits in equity between citizens of different States, where the sum or value in controversy is over five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs.2 Election of Forums. Thus, in equity suits, by citizens of one State against citizens of another State, the complainants have their election to proceed in the State court of the State wherein the defendants reside, or in the United States Circuit Court, when the sum or value of the matter in controversy amounts to over five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs.3 When Subject to Removal. And when such a suit is brought in a State court, by a citizen of the State where it is brought, against a citizen of another State, the defendant may remove the same, for trial into the United States Circuit Court of the district. 4 1 Story's Eq. Jurisprudence, § 57; Story on the Const., §§ 1645, 1646; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108, 115; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433; Boyce's Exrs. v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 110; Bean v. Smith, 2 Mas. 252. 21 Stat. at Large, 78, § 11. Robinson . Campbell, 3 Wheat. 221; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 115. 1 Stat. at Large, 79, § 12. II. EQUITY PRACTICE AND RULES IN UNITED STATES COURTS. The proceedings, forms and practice in equity in the United States Circuit Court conform to those of the English chancery, and not to the practice of the State courts wherein the circuit court sits, as in suits at law. This, too, irrespective of whether such State has a system of equity jurisprudence of its own, or not. In other words, the system of equity practice of the United States courts does not vary in the different districts with that of the respective States, but is uniform and alike in all places throughout the nation. The enactments of Congress in reference to adopting the form of proceedings and practice of the State courts apply only to suits at law, and have no influence upon the equity proceedings in the Federal courts, for the equity jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal courts is uniform in all parts of the United States. It is the same as that of the High Court of Chancery in England, and it can neither be modified cr restrained by legislation of the States. The action of these national courts is in their own sphere, according to their own rules of proceeding; and, within their sphere, is independent of the State legislation and courts, except in so far as such legislation may give rise to, or become rules of right, or may be adopted by such national courts. And when the citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy are such as to confer jurisdiction on these courts, of any equitable character, they may exercise the same and dispose of the case, irrespective of any local or State regulation indicating the manner or the tribunal for disposition, adjudication or settlement of such matters.4 The absence of a complete and 1 Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. 632, 655; S. C., 13 Pet. 359, and 12 Pet. 339; Gaines v. Relf, 15 Pet. 9; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet. 404; Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 609; Poultney v. Lafay ette, 12 Pet. 473, 479. Payne . Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 430; Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108; Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mas. 95; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348, 635; Gaines v. Relf, 15 Pet. 9; Poultney v. Lafayette, 12 Pet. 473; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet. 404; Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. 655; Bein v. Heath, 12 How. 168; Pennsyl vania v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. 3 Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170; Union Bank v. Jolly, 18 How. 503; Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 430; Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329. 4 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 429, 430. |