adequate remedy at law is the test of equitable jurisdiction. This test is to be applied to each particular cause, as the nature thereof is disclosed by the pleadings.1

III. CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS

TRATORS.

The jurisdiction being such, it results that a citizen of one State may maintain a suit in chancery against an administrator who is a citizen of another State, in the circuit court of the district of the latter State wherein such administrator resides, notwithstanding the laws of such latter State, wherein the administration is granted, require the affairs of the administration to be settled in a particular or specified court, and give exclusive jurisdiction thereof to such State court. And when such suit, against the administrator, is for fraud, and to obtain an accounting and satisfaction of rights of a complainant, the sureties of the administrator, resident in the State wherein the suit is brought, are properly made defendants, inasmuch as equity, by its rules and practice, disposes of the whole subject matter when jurisdiction has attached, and does not turn a party over to the law side of the courts to consummate or obtain possession of the fruits of the suit, and therefore, in such proceeding, if the administrator is decreed to account and pay over, will include his bondsmen in the decree, if in court; whereas, if not permitted to be sued with the principal, the result would be a subsequent action or suit against them, if the administrator should not be able to satisfy the decree, or the same be not otherwise realized.3

Though State laws may operate as a rule of right in the courts of the United States, in the several States respectively, yet these laws cannot confer jurisdiction on a United States court, or enlarge, diminish, restrict, or take it away.4

Thus the circuit courts of the United States, with their full equity powers, have jurisdiction over executors and administrators, if the parties are of the proper citizenship as to different

1 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; Boyce's Exrs. v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210.

2 Hyde v. Stone, 20 How. 170; Union Bank v. Jolly, 18 How. 503; Suydam . Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67.

Payne v. Hook,7 Wall. 425, 432,433.

4 Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175; Roach v. Chapman, 22 How. 129; Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67; Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445.

States, and in the exercise of such jurisdiction will enforce the same rules in adjusting claims against them that are enforced in the State courts as between their own citizens.1 If, in such a proceeding in the United States court, objection be made that it was commenced too soon after perfecting the grant of adminis tration, as for instance, within one year, when by the State statute suits may not be commenced against executors or administrators within that time, then the objection, to be available, must be made at the earliest practicable stage of the suit, and will not be allowed if made, for the first time, at the trial.

IV. ENJOINING OF JUDGMENTS IN UNITED STATES COURT IN SAME COURT.

A proceeding in equity by the defendant, to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment rendered against him in a United States circuit court, is but an incident to the original suit in which the judgment is rendered, and is not to be regarded as an original bill or distinct proceeding. Therefore the fact that the defendant therein, who is the representative of the plaintiff in the judgment, being a citizen of the same State as the complainant, and in which the judgment is rendered, does not militate against the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the bill.3

Judgment of State Court. Bankruptcy. But a United States court may not enjoin a proceeding of a State court, except in cases within the jurisdiction in bankruptcy.4

V. INJUNCTION IN STATE COURT, ACTING ON THE PERSON OF DEFENDANT.

The authority of courts of one State to restrain by injunction persons within its jurisdiction from prosecuting suits either in the courts of such State or in the courts of other States, against persons, or the property there situate of persons, resident in the State wherein the injunction is asked, is fully asserted. Not by way of interference with the course of proceedings or jurisdic

Walker v. Walker, 9 Wall. 743, 755; Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90; Harvey v. Richards, 1 Mas. 381.

2 Walker o. Walker, 9 Wall. 743. 3 Dunn v. Clark, 8 Pet. 1.

41 U. S. Stat. at Large, 334; Dial v. Reynolds, 6 Otto, 340; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cr. 178; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 719; Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 625.

tion of courts of other States; for, to this end, a court has no power; but upon the principle that courts of equity have full power over persons within their jurisdiction and amenable to their process, to restrain them from proceeding, either within or without the State, to do acts which are wrongful towards other residents, and therefore contrary to equity and good conscience.1 The State courts cannot, however, enjoin proceeding in the courts of the United States; and, as has been seen, the latter cannot in the former. In the exercise of this equitable power a court will restrain by injunction a citizen or resident within its jurisdiction from prosecuting an attachment suit in a court of another State against the personal property therein situate of an insolvent debtor, resident in the State in which the injunction is applied for, and who has made a general assignment therein valid in law, for the equal benefit of all his creditors, when the result of such attachment would be to give to the plaintiff therein a priority as to such property, and prevent the exercise of the equitable right of the assignee over the same for the equal benefit of the creditors. 3

To Prevent an Attachment as Against an Assignee. The equitable right of the assignee in such case is paramount, unless some valid claim or lien exists, under the laws of the State where the property attached is situated, which under the laws of that State would override the equity of the assignment, if the attachment was abandoned.4

Nor does it matter, as between the equities of the assignee and the attaching plaintiff, who is a resident of the same State as the assignee, that the attachment proceedings be set on foot prior to the making of the assignment, if commenced with intent to obtain a preference over an expected assignment. "By interposing to prevent it," says BIGELOW, J., "we do not interfere with the jurisdiction in other States, or control the operation of foreign laws. We only assert and enforce our own authority over persons within our jurisdiction, to prevent them

1 Dehon . Foster, 4 Allen, 545; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cr. 148, 158; Briggs v. French, 1 Sum. 504; Engel v. Scheuerman, 40 Geo. 206; Story's Eq. Jur. $ 899-901; Hilliard on Injunc tions, 266-272.

U. S. v. Keokuk, 6 Wall. 514;

Bryan v. Hickson, 40 Geo. 405; Kendall v. Windsor, 6 R. I. 453; Hines v. Ranson, 40 Geo. 356.

Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 545; Same v. Same, 7 Allen, 57.

4 Dehon v. Foster, 7 Allen, 57. Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 545.

from making use of means by which they seek to countervail and escape the operation of our own laws, in derogation of the rights, and to the wrong and injury of our own citizens." This case was simply a controversy between the domestic creditors of the insolvent assignor, and did not involve the rights of citizens of the State, or residents thereof, wherein the attachment proceedings were pending. The assignment being valid where made, is valid, within the rules of comity, elsewhere, when not in derogation of the policy or law of the other State, and does not derogate from the rights of creditors resident therein; and, as personal property is without a locality, and its disposition is controlled by the laws of the owner's domicile, and not by those of the locality where it happens to be, such being the general principle, it follows that the transfer by assignment, when valid where made, is valid everywhere else, subject to the limitation that it is not to have an effect contrary to the laws and policy of other States, as to the injury of the citizens or residents of the States whose laws are invoked to carry it out. By the rule laid down in Massachusetts, if the attaching creditor be resident in or a citizen of the State wherein is pending the attachment proceeding, then, in the courts of that State, the attachment overrides the foreign assignment, for the law of comity does not require the courts of a State to enforce its own laws in favor of contracts made in other States, to the detriment of the rights of its own citizens or inhabitants. 3

1 Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 545.

2 Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen, 545, 553; Wales v. Alden, 22 Pick. 245; Cragin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 395; Swearingen v. Morris, 14 Ohio St. 424; Martin v. Potter, 11 Gray, 37.

Ingraham v. Geyer, 13 Mass. 146; Boyd v. Rockport Steam Mills, 7 Gray, 406; Zipcey v. Thompson, 1 Gray, 243; Cragin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 395.

CHAPTER VIII.

INTER-STATE LAW OF CONTRACTS.

I. THE LAW OF THE CONTRACT. II. THE LAW OF PERFORMANCE. III. THE LAW OF THE REMEDY.

IV. STATUTORY BONDS MADE IN STATE PROCEEDINGS.

V.

VI.

STATUTORY BONDS TAKEN IN NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
RULE OF DAMAGES.

VII. CONTRACTS MADE WITH A VIEW TO VIOLATE LAWS OF ANOTHER

It is a general principle that the validity, force and meaning of contracts which are expressed to be performable where made, or which do not purport to be performable at any particular place whatever, are governed by the law of the place where the contract is entered into, as the same existed at the date of the contract. Thus, when a contract is made in a particular State, and is performable in the same State, or is not expressly or impliedly performable in any particular State, or place, then the sufficiency of its execution, and its validity and meaning, are all determinable by the laws of the State wherein it was made. If valid there, it is valid wherever and in whatever other State it is sought to be judicially enforced, if not in its character repugnant to the laws and policy of such latter State. Therefore, in the enforcement of a contract performable at no particular place, in a suit thereon in the court of a different