Since each state has the sole right to determine what is and shall be its own law in respect to all matters not delegated in the Constitution to the United States, it would seem perfectly plain, that in applying the law of a state the federal courts are bound by the decisions, if any, of the state courts of last resort as to what the state law is. If the state courts have established a certain rule of law as being the law of the state, the federal courts have no power to declare the law to be something else. The federal courts in administering state law exercise an independent though concurrent jurisdiction, "but it does not follow that the federal judges should be at liberty to ascertain and declare the law of the state according to their own judgment, not of what that law is, but of what that law ought to be. On the contrary, the law of a state, like the law of a foreign country should be proven and found as a fact by the federal judges." 20 It shocks common sense that a federal court should have power to declare the state law differently from what the state courts have declared it to be-that the law of the state should be one thing in a federal court and a different thing in a state court. Two inconsistent rules cannot both be the law of the same state at the same time. As declared by Justice Bushrod Washington in an early case,21 "The injustice as well as the absurdity of the former (the federal courts) deciding by one rule, and the latter (the state courts) by another, would be too monstrous to find a place in any system of government." Consistently with the foregoing, the federal courts have generally recognized the binding effect of state decisions in determining matters of state law, particularly in connection with the construction of the constitution and statutes of the state.22 20-Patterson, United States and States under the Constitution, § 109. 21-Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. 313, quoted in 45 Amer. L. Rev. 55. 22-Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 291; Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555; City of Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492; Union Nat. Bank v. Bank Where the state law on a given point has been authoritatively and definitely settled by the state courts, there seems to be no question that the federal courts should follow the decisions of the state courts, but where there is no authoritative declaration of the state courts as to what the state law is, then "it is the right and duty of the federal courts to exercise their own judgment, as they also always do in reference to the doctrines of commercial law and general jurisprudence." 23 Plainly, when there is no decision of the state court on the subject, the federal courts must necessarily determine the law as best they can for themselves. Their right to do so grows out of the necessity of the case, and is doubtless authorized by the provision of the Constitution conferring jurisdiction to determine controversies between citizens of different states even where no federal law is involved. But should the state court afterwards pass upon the point, the federal courts, in later cases, should undoubtedly follow the decision of the state court, for it is the function of the highest court of the state, rather than of the federal courts, to determine what the law of the state is. And on the same principle it would seem that the federal courts should follow the latest decision of the state court where there has been a change of decision, though, as will appear in the next section, they do not always do this. This right of independent judgment has been asserted and exercised by the federal courts in refusing to follow decisions of the state courts rendered after the cause of action accrued.24 And, while ordinarily the construction and effect of a conveyance between private parties is a matter as to which the federal courts will follow the state of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61; Price v. Illinois, 238 U. S. 446. 23-Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. 24-Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20; Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93; Great Southern Hotel Co. v. Jones, 193 U. S. 532. courts,25 the Supreme Court in a late case held that where there was no decision of the state court construing a deed at the time the particular deed of that type sued on was executed, the federal court was not bound by a decision. of the state court rendered after the deed was executed and suit was brought thereon in the federal court.28 The independence of the federal courts in matters of general commercial law, and subjects of general jurisprudence of interstate application, has already been pointed out. In these matters the federal courts do not feel bound to follow state decisions, but administer what we have found to be a federal common law.27 This, of course, is an entirely different case from the one we are now considering, though often confused therewith. In determining questions of general law the federal courts are in fact not applying state law but federal law, while the question now before us is how far the federal courts are bound by the decisions of the state courts in matters of a local nature involving only state law. § 44. Effect of changes in decisions of state courts. Where the state courts have not been consistent in their decisions but in later cases have overruled earlier decisions, the latest decision is, of course, the law in the state courts; but the federal courts do not consider themselves 25-De Vaughn v. Hutchinson, 165 U. S. 566; East Central Eureka Min. Co. v. Central Eureka Min. Co., 204 U. S. 266. But see Foxcroft v. Mallett, 4 How. 353. In Lane v. Vick, 3 How. 464, the decision of the state court was not followed in the construction of a will. 26-Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349. In this case the circuit court of appeals certified to the supreme court the question whether it was bound to follow the decision of the state court as to the construction of the deed in ques tion. The supreme court answered bound in this respect by the decisions of the state courts, at least as to rights accruing before the change in the state decisions. The position of the Supreme Court on this point is thus stated by Mr. Justice Lurton: 28 "Courts of the United States are courts of independent jurisdiction, and when a question arises in a United States court as to the effect of a change in decision which detrimentally affects contract rights and obligations entered into before such change, such rights and obligations should be determined by the law as judicially determined at the time the rights accrued. In every such case the federal courts, while leaning to the view of the state court as to the validity or interpretation of a law of the state will not necessarily follow state decisions rendered subsequently." The doctrine that the federal court is not bound to follow the latest decisions of the state courts in matters even of local law or the construction of private contracts involving no principle of general importance, was first established in the leading case of Gelpke v. City of Dubuque, decided in 1863.29 In this case it appeared that, by a series of decisions of the supreme court of Iowa the validity of certain municipal bonds had been established, but in a later case these decisions were overruled and the bonds held invalid. The Supreme Court declined to follow the latest decision of the Iowa court in a suit involving bonds issued during the time the earlier decisions were in force, and upheld the bonds. The effect of this decision, of course, was that the bonds would be held valid or invalid according to whether the suit on them was brought in a federal or in a state court. That is, the state law as to the validity of such bonds (there being no federal law involved) would be one thing in the federal court and another thing in the state court. 28-Moore-Mansfield Construction 29-Gelpke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Co. v. Electrical Installation Co., Wall. 175. 234 U. S. 619. This case seems to overrule a carefully considered earlier case 30 and was accompanied by a powerful dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice Miller. The situation is thus summarized by a recent writer, after quoting United States Revised Statutes, § 271, set out above: "This statutory requirement ought to have been construed to require the application of state rules of law as evidenced by state constitutions, statutes and judg ments of state courts of last resort, in all cases where the jurisdiction attaches solely by reason of diverse citizenship, but the court has held otherwise, and it is settled law, that while the courts of the United States will accept and follow a fixed construction by the judicial department of a state of its constitution and statutes, yet, when the decisions of the state courts of last resort are not consistent, the United States courts do not feel bound to follow the last decision, nor will a federal court follow a state decision rendered after the cause of action has accrued." 31 § 45. Comity between state and federal courts. In cases within the concurrent jurisdiction of the state and federal courts, the court which first acquires jurisdiction of a case must usually be permitted to proceed therein to final judgment without interference by the other court. If the federal court first acquires jurisdiction, it will protect its jurisdiction by injunction or otherwise from interference by the state courts; and, conversely, if the suit is first brought in the state court, the federal court will not interfere or assume jurisdiction, except in cases proper for removal.32 Congress has provided that "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except where 30-Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. 279. 31-Patterson, United States and States under the Constitution, § 109. 32-29 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 231; 4 Fed. St. Ann. 509. |