8 9 waters, when the acts of Congress are silent upon the subject,5 the title to land formed by accretion, the rights of riparian owners in the bed of a stream, whether navigable or otherwise, the validity and construction of oil, gas, and mining leases, but not the question whether equity will interfere for their protection,10 the construction of mortgages,11 the validity of tax sales, 12 the extent 13 and priority of tax liens,14 the rights of abutters in streets 15 and sidewalks 16 rights of way,17 the law as to what constitutes possession of land,18 and generally all questions affecting real estate, 19 in the absence of constitutional difficulties, depend upon the rule of property. 20 The decisions of the State courts as to the formalities necessary to a marriage as to the power of married women to make contracts as to the validity of contracts between husband and 20a County, Iowa, C. C. A., 182 Fed. 291. 5 The Golden Rod, 197 Fed. 830. 6 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 24 L. ed. 224; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 250, 34 L. ed. 941, 951. 7 Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324, 338, 24 L. ed. 224, 228; St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U. S. 566, 28 L. ed. 1131; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 34 L. ed. 819; St. Louis v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226, 242, 34 L. ed. 941, 947; Trujillo & Mercado v. Succession of Rodriguez, C. C. A., 233 Fed. 208. 8 Lindlay et al. v. Raydure, 239 Fed. 928; Shaffer v. Marks, 241 Fed. 139. 9 Nelson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 285; Downey v. Gooch, 240 Fed. 527. 10 Smith v. Guffey, C. C. A., 202 Fed. 106. 11 Re Israelson, 230 Fed. 1000. 12 Lewis v. Monson, 151 U. S. 545, 38 L. ed. 265; Bardon v. Land & R. Imp. Co., 157 U. S. 327, 39 L. ed. 719. 13 Bardon v. Land & R. Imp. Co., 157 U. S. 327, 39 L. ed. 719. 14 Bear River Paper & Bag Co. v. City of Petoskey, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 53. 15 Lobensteine v. Union El. R. Co., 80 Fed. 199. But see Barber v. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 501. 16 Werthner v. Girard Ave. Farmers' Market Co., C. C. A., 218 Fed. 364. 17 Southern Ry. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Public Works, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 383. 18 Santee R. C. L. Co. v. James, 10 Fed. 360. 19 Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21, 33 L. ed. 513; Thompson v. Sloss- Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., C. C. A., 209 Fed. 840; Schofield v. Baker, 212 Fed. 504; holding that property is real and not personal; Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Hinchman, C. C. A., 212 Fed. 813 (vendor's lien); an unreported decision. Rowe v. Kidd, 249 Fed. 882. 20 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Johnson, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 683. 20a Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, wife, 21 as to the rights of married women in their husband's property,22 as to their remedies to enforce such rights, 23 and as to how they can be forfeited,24 as to the custody of infants resident of the State and the relative rights of parents in respect to them,25 will usually be followed. Ordinarily the Federal courts will also follow the State decisions as to the powers and duties of a municipality or other public corporation in the State,26 or as to the liability of municipal corporations for tort; 27 and as to their power to contract; 28 but a municipal fireboat was held liable, in admiralty, for its negligence, in a case where the State law gave no remedy against the city.29 The State decisions will usually be followed in determining what constitutes a sale of personal property,30 an attorney's lien,31 or banker's lien,32 and in general all questions concerning the liens upon personal property, 33 including their respective pri 245 U. S. 412, 38 Sup. Ct. 147; affirming C. C. A., 228 Fed. 610, holding that the law of the domicile which is the forum applies although the contract was made in another jurisdiction. See Meier & Frank Co. v. Bruce, in the Supreme Court of Idaho, October, 1917, 168 Pac. 5; International Harvester Co. v. McAdam, 142 Wis. 114. 21 Re Tucker, 148 Fed. 928. 22 Schnepfe v. Schnepfe, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 781. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Betts, J., in Re Barry, 42 Fed. 113, 132; s. c., 136 U. S. 597, 624, 34 L. ed. 512, 514. 26 Board of Com'rs of Kay County v. Pollard-Campbell Dredging Co., C. C. A., 221 Fed. 249. 27 Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492, 34 L. ed. 260; Edgerton v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 27 Fed. 30; Clark v. Atlantic City, 180 Fed. 598. 28 Claiborne County V. Brooks, 111 U. S. 400, 28 L. ed. 470; Nor ton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 440, 340 L. ed. 178; Meriwether v. Muhlenburg Court, 120 U. S. 354, 357, 30 L. ed. 653, 654; Francis v. Howard County, 50 Fed. 44; Thompson v. Searey County, 57 Fed. 1030; City Water Supply Co. v. Ottumwa, 120 Fed. 309; Sidey v. City of Marceline, Mo., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 168; Vincennes Bridge Co. v. Board of County Com'rs, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 93; Eaton v. Shiawassee County, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 588. But see supra, § 477c. 29 Workman v. New York, 179 U. S. 552, 45 L. ed. 314. 30 Re Ricketts, C. C. A., 234 Fed. 285. 31 Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada v. Casanova, C. C. A., 260 Fed. 449. See supra, § 422a. 32 Re Richheimer, 221 Fed. 16; Am. Surety Co. v. Bellingham Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 55. 33 Bear River Paper & Bag Co. v. City of Petoskey, C. C. A., 241 Fed. 53. ority, the extent of the liability of sureties upon statutory bonds.35 Federal courts have followed the decisions of the State courts as to what constitutes contributory negligence by a pedestrian at a railroad crossing.36 The Federal courts usually follow the decisions of the State courts as to the power of domestic corporations to make contracts 37 and as to whether they are exempt from liability to strangers for the negligence of their employees.38 The State decisions as to the effect of a judgment of its courts, as res adjudicata, will ordinarily be followed; 39 and those concerning the rights of a third person to sue at common law, upon a contract made with another for his benefit; 40 as to the allowance or disallowance of interest upon overdue coupons for interest,41 or upon damages for a tort; as to the amount of damages recoverable upon a court bond; 48 and as to the rate of interest upon an obligation after it falls due.44 42 A Federal court is not bound to follow a decision of the State court as to the validity or construction of a particular deed,45 or 34 Columbia Digger Co. v. Sparks, C. C. A., 279 Fed. 780; Am. Surety Co. v. Bellingham Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 55; Sclarenco v. Chicago Bonding Co., 236 Fed. 592. 35 Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Skerman, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 269. Cf. Toby v. Scranton Ry. Co., 245 Fed. 365. 36 Toby v. Scranton Ry. Co., 245 37 But see Sherard v. Walton, 206 Fed. 562; Barkley v. Hayes, 208 Fed. 319. 38 Paterlini v. Memorial Hospital Ass'n of Monongahela City, Pa., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 639. 39 Union & Planters' Bank V. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 47 L. ed. 712. 40 Bethlehem Iron Co. v. Hoadley, 152 Fed. 735; Gibson v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 232 Fed. 225. 41 Holden v. Freedman's S. & Tr. Co., 100 U. S. 72, 25 L. ed. 567; Bolles v. Town of Amboy, 40 Fed. 168. 42 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 37 L. ed. 292. 48 Fidelity & D. Co. v. L. Bucki & Son Lumber Co., 189 U. S. 135, 47 L. ed. 744. 44 Ohio v. Frank, 103 U. S. 697, 26 L. ed. 531; Mather v. Stokely, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 764. 45 Shepard v. Walton, 206 Fed. 562; Barkley v. Hayes, 208 Fed. 319; Stelle v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 212 Fed. 972; Knox & Lewis v. Alwood, 228 Fed. 753, 756. "Upon the question whether the expression of a testator, in his will, of a wish, or recommendation, will the construction of a particular will,46 which is not res adjudi cata between the parties; 47 but should decide such questions in accordance with the law of the State where the deed was executed or the testator died, as the case may be, as evidenced by statute or rules of interpretation adopted by the highest court of the State,48 in case of doubt leaning towards concurrence with the latest State decision.49 It has been said that "the United States courts will follow the rules laid down by the highest courts of a State, in the matter of determining whether the lex loci contractus, or the lex fori shall govern.' 50 Questions of public policy, as affecting the liability for acts done, or upon contracts made and to be performed, within one of the States of the Union-when not controlled by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or by the principles of the commercial or mercantile law, or of general jurisprudence of national or universal application are governed by the law of the State, as expressed in its own constitution and statutes, or declared by its highest court.51 Thus the validity of an agree ment, that the lessor, a railway company, should not be responsible to the lessee for damage by fire due to the lessor's negligence, should be determined in accordance with the decisions of the courts of the State.52 The State decisions as to the validity of a stipulation in a mortgage for an attorney's fee are followed by the Federal courts,53 unless they fix an arbitrary amount based upon a percentage exclusive of the labor performed by the create a trust, the decisions of the State courts merely afford a guide in applying the general rule that the intention of the testator is to be effectuated." Russell v. U. S. Trust Co., 127 Fed. 445. 46 Knox & Lewis v. Alwood, 228 Fed. 753, 756; Wells v. Brown, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 857. See Diamond v. Connolly, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 234. 47 Byrd v. Hall, 211 Fed. 182. 48 Wells v. Brown, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 857. 49 Steele v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 212 Fed. 972. See supra, § 477, infra, § 477c. 50 Parker v. Moore, C. C. A., 115 Fed. 799, 802. 51 Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 100, 44 L. ed. 84, 89, per Mr. Justice Gray. 52 Ibid. 53 Bendey v. Townsend, 109 U. S. 665, 27 L. ed. 1065; Dodge v. Tulleys, 144 U. S. 451, 36 L. ed. 501; Gray v. Havemeyer, C. C. A., 53 Fed. 174; Childs v Ferguson, C. C. A., 181 Fed. 795. attorney.54 Nor a decision made subsequent to the execution of the contract in suit.55 § 477c. Effect of State statutes creating or regulating rights upon the decisions of the Federal courts. The statute law of a State will always be followed by a Federal court there held, so far as the statutes establish a local rule of property;1 and nearly always, so far as they create or abolish rights as distinct from remedies.2 The construction of a statute, by the courts of the State of its enactment, will usually be followed by the Federal courts, and always will be so followed if it was made before the facts occurred, out of which the question for adjudication arises, and provided it is not clearly erroneous even, it has 54 Mechanics' Am. Nat. Bank v. Coleman, C. C. A., 204 Fed. 24; supra, § 477. 55 Interstate Compress Co. v. Agnew, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 508. § 477c. 1 Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268, 271, 14 L. ed. 140; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, 20, 23, L. ed. 524, 528; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485, 27 L. ed. 1006; Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568; McClaskey v. Barr, 42 Fed. 609, 617. See Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 31 L. ed. 795; Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, 729, 23 L. ed. 254. 2 D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476, 7 L. ed. 227; Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 10 L. ed. 123; Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. 159, 16 L. ed. 596; Brine v. Insurance Co., 96 U. S. 627, 24 L. ed. 858; Mills v. Scott, 99 U. S. 25, 25 L. ed. 294; Van Norden v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378, 25 L. ed. 453; Cummings v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157, 25 L. ed. 903, 904; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 28 L. ed. 52; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 28 L. ed. 733; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 31 L. ed. 795; Percy Summer Club v. Astle, C. C. A., 163 Fed. 1 But see Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517, 15 L. ed. 509; supra, §§ 82, 83. 3 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 551, 7 L. ed. 174; D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476, 7 L. ed. 227; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297, 13 L. ed. 703; Tioga R. Co. v. Blossburg & C. R. Co., 20 Wall. 137, 22 L. ed. 331; Townsend v. Todd, 91 U. S. 452, 23 L. ed. 413; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; Seipio v. Wright, 101 U. S. 665, 25 L. ed. 1037; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 34, 27 L. ed. 359, 365; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 31 L. ed. 795; Bacon v. N. W. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 131 U. S. 258, 33 L. ed. 128; Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 331, 33 L. ed. 184, 191; Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393, 397, 37 L. ed. 495, 497; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194, 41 L. ed. 683; Zeiger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., C. C. A., 158 Fed. 809. See Henderson v. Phillips, 178 Fed. 374. 4 Tootle v. Coleman, C. C. A., 107 Fed. 41, 45; Lauderdale County v. Kittel, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 592; Old Colony Trust Co. v. City of Tacomma, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 389; Turner v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago, C. C. A., 244 Fed. 108; Lud |