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." 1 Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329; Wayman v. 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 Beers v. Watson v. CHAPTER VII. INTER-STATE EQUITY JURISDICTON AND PRACTICE. I. CONCURRENt State and NATIONAL EQUITY JURISDICTION. III. JURISDICTION IN UNITED STATES COURTS OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINIS- 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." 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. 3 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 legis lation 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. '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. 2 Payne v. 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. The absence of a complete and 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. 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.2 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 v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67. 3 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.2 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 1 Walker v. Walker, 9 Wall. 743, 755; Green v. Creighton, 23 How. 90; Harvey v. Richards, 1 Mas. 381. 2 Walker v. 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. |