An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. — reading text

decision in the courts of the United States; and the same effect is given to them as is given in the State courts. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 3 Peters, 277. The statute laws of the States must furnish the rules of decision to the federal courts, as far as they comport with the laws of the United States, in all cases arising within the respective States; and a fixed and received construction of these respective statute laws in their own courts, makes a part of such statute law. Shelby et al. v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 345. The Supreme Court adopts the local law of real property as ascertained by the decisions of State courts; whether those decisions are grounded on the construction of the statutes of the State, or from a part of the unwritten law of the State, which has become a fixed rule of property. Jackson v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153; 6 Cond. Rep. 489. Soon after the decision of a case in the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, a case was decided in the court of appeals of the State, on which the question on the execution laws of Virginia was elabo- rately argued, and deliberately decided. The Supreme Court, according to its uniform course, adopts the construction of the act, which is made by the highest court of the State. The United States v. Mor- rison, 4 Peters, 124. The Supreme Court has uniformly adopted the decisions of the State tribunals, respectively, in all cases where the decision of a State court has become a rule of property. Green v. Neal, 6 Peters, 291. In all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, the Supreme Court may exer- cise a revising power, and its decisions are final and obligatory on all other tribunals, State as well as federal. A State tribunal has a right to examine any such questions, and to determine thereon, but its decisions must conform to those of the Supreme Court, or the corrective power of that court may be exer- cised. But the case is very different when the question arises under a local law. The decision of this question by the highest tribunal of a State, should be considered as final by the Supreme Court; not be- cause the State tribunal has power, in such a case, to bind the Supreme Court, but because, in the lan- guage of the court in Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361, a fixed and received construction by a State, in its own courts, makes a part of the statute law. Ibid. See also Smith v. Clapp, 15 Peters, 125. Wat- kins v. Holman et al., 16 Peters, 25. Long v. Palmer, 16 Peters, 65. Golden v. Price, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 313. Campbell v. Claudius, Peters’ C. C. R. 484. Henderson and Wife v. Griffin, 5 Peters, 151. Coates’ executrix v. Muse’s adm’or., 1 Brocken’s C. C. R. 539. Parsons v. Bedford et al., 3 Peters, 433.  FIRST CONGRESS. Ses s . I. Ch . 21. 1789. 93 services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts be- fore which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be eral Attorney Gen- of the U. S. appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful exe- cution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all Duties. suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required Act of May 29, 1830, ch. 153. by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall Compensation. by law be provided.(a) Appro ve d , September 24, 1789. Sta tu te I. Chap . XXI.—An Act to regulate Processes in the Courts of the United Slates. Sept. 29, 1789. Sec ti on 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- Act of May 26, 1790, Obso- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all lete. writs and processes issuing from a supreme or a circuit court shall bear Act of Feb- test of the chief justice of the supreme court, and if from a district court, ruary 18, 1791. Repealed. shall bear test of the judge of such court, and shall be under the seal of Writs to bear the court from whence they issue; and signed by the clerk thereof. The test of the Chief seals of the supreme and circuit courts to be provided by the supreme Justice. To be under court, and of the district courts, by the respective judges of the same. the seal of the Sec . 2. And be it further enacted, That until further provision shall Court from be made, and except where by this act or other statutes of the United which they is- sue. States is otherwise provided, the forms of writs and executions, except Act of May 8, their style, and modes of process and rates of fees, except fees to judges, 1792. in the circuit and district courts, in suits at common law, shall be the Act of May 19, 1828. same in each state respectively as are now used or allowed in the su- Forms of writs preme courts of the same. (6) And the forms and modes of proceedings in and executions (a) The acts relating to the compensation of the Attorney General of the United States are : Act of March 2, 1797 ; act of March 2, 1799, chap. 38; act of February 20, 1804, chap. 12 5 act of February 20, 1819, chap. 27; act of May 29, 1830, chap. 153, sec. 10. (&) The 34th section of the judiciary act of 1789, authorizes the courts of the United States to issue writs of execution as well as other writs. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 1. Whenever, by the state laws in force in 1789, a capias might issue from a state court, the acts of 1789 and 1792, extending in terms to that species of writ, must be understood to have adopted its use perma- nently in the federal courts. Bank of the United States v. January, 10 Wheat. 66—in note. The process act of 1792, chap. 36, is the law which regulates executions issuing from the courts of the United States, and it adopts the practice of the supreme courts of the States existing in 1789, as the rule for governing proceedings on such executions, subject to such alterations as the Supreme Court of the United States may make ; but not subject to the alterations which have since taken place in the State laws and practice. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 1. At an early period after the organization of the federal courts, the rules of practice in the State courts, which were similar'to the English practice, were adopted by the judges of the Circuit Court. A subsequent change in the practice of the State courts will not authorize a departure from the rules first adopted in the Circuit Court. 1 Peters’ C. C. R. 1. Whenever by the laws of the United States a defendant may be arrested, the process of arrest em- ployed in the State may be adopted. Bun’s trial, 431. The process act of 1828 was passed shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Wayman v. Southard, and the Bank of the United States v. Halstead, and was in- tended as a legislative sanction of the opinions of the court in those cases. The power given to the courts of the United States to make rules and regulations on final process, so as to conform the same to the laws of the States on the same subject, extends to future legislation; and as well to the modes of proceeding on executions as to the forms of writs. Ross and King v. Duval et al., 13 Peters, 45. The first judiciary act of 1789, chap. 20, does not contemplate compulsive process against any person, in any district, unle'ss he be an inhabitant of, or found within the same district at the time of serving the writ. Picquet v. Swann, 5 Mason’s C. C. R. 35. Congress have by the constitution, exclusive authority to regulate proceedings in the courts of the United States, and the States have no authority to control those proceedings, except so far as the State process acts are adopted by Congress, or by the courts of the United States under the authority of Con- gress. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 1. The laws of the United States authorize the courts of the United States so to alter the form of process of execution used in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1789, as to subject to executions