Page images
PDF
EPUB

interest.1 The interest reserved on the contract being good in the State where made, will be enforced by the courts of another State, even though, if it had there been entered into, it would have been forfeited or declared void by reason of its own usury laws. 2

Forfeitures for usury. Statutory forfeitures for usury in regard to loans or contracts for payment of money bear relation to the remedy. Therefore, when such contracts are sued in another State, then, inasmuch as in such other State the remedy is governed by the law of the forum, it results, from these conclusions, that in the courts of such other State the forfeiture cannot be enforced; it may only be enforced when suit is pending in the State where the statute exists.4

' Lee v. Selleck, 33 N. Y. 615; Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 124; DeWolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367; Davis v. Garr, 6 N. Y. 124; Robb o. Halsey, 11 Sm. & M. 140.

2 Cases cited above.

Sherman v. Gassett, 9 Ill. 521: Lindsay v. Hill, 66 Maine, 212.

4 Ibid.; Barnes v. Whitaker, 22 Ill. 606.

CHAPTER IX.

RULES OF PROPERTY AND RIGHT THE SAME IN STATE AND NATIONAL

COURTS.

I. WHEN THE LOCAL RULES OF LAW ARE FOLLOWED BY UNITED STATES COURTS.

II. BLIND CONFORMITY TO STATE RULINGS NOT REQUIRED OF UNITED STATES COURTS.

I. WHEN THE LOCAL RULES OF LAW ARE FOLLOWED BY UNITED STATES COURTS.

Except when they conflict with the Constitution and treaties of the United States and acts of Congress, the laws of the several States and well settled rules of property and rights of a local nature of the State courts are recognized, and are ordinarily followed by the United States courts in causes at law, in the respective States where these courts are held, whether the same be the result of statutory enactments, common law usages, or the decisions of highest State courts.1 Therefore, where, by a State statute, judgments in ejectment, except of non-suit, are a bar to a subsequent action for the same property between the same parties and those claiming under them, it is held that such enactment is alike binding on national and State courts in such State. The State court constructions of State laws, it was decided in an early and leading case, would be followed in the United States

1 Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35, 43, 44; Christy v. Pridgeon, 4 Wall. 196, 203; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361; Sneed v. Wister, 8 Wheat. 690; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat, 152; McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270; Henderson v. Griffin, 5 Pet. 151; Green v. Neal's Lessee, 6 Pet. 291, 298; Steamboat Orleans v. Phoebus, 11 Pet. 175; Ross v. Duval, 13 Pet. 45; Nesmith v.

Sheldon, 7 How. 812; Suydam v. Wil-
liamson, 24 How. 427, 433; 1 United
States Stat. at Large, 92; Original
Judiciary Act, § 34.

2 Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35, 43, 44; Brine v. Insurance Co., 6 Otto, 627; Orvis v. Powell, 2 Chicago Law Journal, 190, (Oct. Term U. S. Sup. Ct. 1878.)

courts. The same has often been decided as to State court constructions of their own constitutions. So, where the decisions of the State courts have been long acquiesced in, and form an established rule of property, they will be followed by the federal courts. On questions, however, which do not involve the construction of local laws, but which relate to the construction of instruments, such as deeds and wills, the federal courts do not feel bound by the State decisions. So, it has been decided that in the construction of State statutes of limitations, the State decisions would be followed, as well as on the construction of rules of evidence based on State laws. If the decisions of the State court have been conflicting and changeable, the last decision is generally followed, unless a previous decision of the State court should already have been adopted by the federal courts.

In

Shelby v. Guy, Justice JOHNSON says: "That the statute laws of the States must furnish the rule of decision of this court as far as they comport with the Constitution of the United States, in all cases arising within the respective States, is a position that no one doubts. Nor is it questionable that a fixed and received construction of their respective statute laws, in their own courts, makes, in fact, a part of the statute law of the country, however we may doubt the propriety of that construction. It is obvious that that admission may at times involve us in seeming inconsistencies, as where States have adopted the same statutes, but their courts differ in their construction. Yet that course is necessarily indicated by the duty imposed on us, to administer, as between certain individuals, the laws of the respective States, according to the best lights we possess, of what those lights

are." A

[blocks in formation]

II. BLIND CONFORMITY TO STATE RULINGS NOT REQUIRED OF UNITED STATES COURTS.

But the courts of the United States are not absolutely bound to follow or defer to the State court construction of State Constitution and laws by a blind conformity thereto, although many dicta are to be found to that effect. On the contrary, the federal reports show many cases of exception to the rule. Where there is a settled construction of the laws of a State by its highest court, and such construction has become an established precedent, it is the practice of the national courts to accept and adopt it; but where the United States court has first decided the question, it will not feel bound to retrace its course and surrender its judicial conviction by reason of a subsequent contrary State court decision.2

When State court decisions are erratic or inconsistent, the federal court is not disposed to follow the last, if contrary to its own convictions. In the case of Pease v. Peck, the United States Supreme Court, SQUIER, J., say: "And much more is this the case where, after a long course of consistent decisions, some new light suddenly springs up, or an excited public opinion has elicited new doctrines subversive of former safe precedent. Cases may exist, also, when a cause is got in a State court for the very purpose of anticipating our decision of a question known to be pending in this court. Nor do we feel bound, in any case in which a point is first raised in the courts of the United States, and has been decided in a Circuit Court, to reverse that decision, contrary to our own convictions, in order to conform to a State decision made in the meantime. Such decisions have not the character of established precedent declarative of the settled law of a State."4

1 Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595.

Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599; Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black, 418.

Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1.

* 18 How. 598, 599. See, also, Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1.

CHAPTER X.

ACTIONS AND SUITS ON JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.

I. ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES.

II. ACTIONS ON DECREES OF OTHER STATES.

III. ACTION IN STATE COURT AND UNITED STATES COURT, ON JUDGMENTS

OF EITHER.

IV. ACTION ON CONDITIONAL JUDGMENTS.

V. ACTION ON JOINT JUDGMENT.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

ACTION ON JUDGMENT ON PENAL BOND.

COMPETENCY OF THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE.

CHANGE OF STATE Sovereignty.

IX. JUDGMENTS AND DECREES IN PROCEEDINGS IN REM.

[blocks in formation]

I. ACTIONS AND SUITS ON JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES.

State Court. Actions and suits will lie in the courts of a State upon personal judgments and decrees of the courts of another State for a fixed sum in money, where the court rendering the same had obtained jurisdiction of the defendant in such judgment;1 and so as to Territories of the United States."

Courts Take Notice of New States. And where a new State is created by division of an old one, the courts take notice thereof3 and recognize such judgments and decrees, when certified and authenticated by the authorities of the new State having the custody of the record thereof.4

Judgments for money being debts of record of the highest grade, actions at law will lie thereon whether they be judgments of the same State, or of a different State, or of a court of the United

1 1 Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65; Nation v. Johnson, 24 How. 195; Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116; Danforth v. Thompson, 34 Iowa, 243; Woodward v. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542; Dennison v. Williams, 4 Conn. 402; Ives

v. Finch, 28 Conn. 112; Freeman on Judgments, § 432.

? Ibid.

3 Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116, 118; Gilbert v. Moline Water Power & Manf. Co., 19 Iowa, 319.

4 Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116.

« PreviousContinue »