The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1845-09-04

utOTy. by Tic TutS tneTG prescribed VIII our CIVIL
conduct be tested, and rights determined before
whatever tribunals they may be adudicated. But
the courts of the Union will not only decide qucs-
tons depending on local laws, in conformity with
those laws, but in such cases, (and more especially
where titles to lands are ihvoved the construction
put by the State courts on those laws, where that
is settled and ascertaned, will be adopted by the
courts of the United States. And whether the de-
cison Of the courts of the State be grounded upon
the construction of the statutes of the State, or
form a part of the unwritten law Of State,
which has become rule Of property, they will
be regarded by the federal courts as Of equal obi
CATION. In the case Of Folks lessee rs. Wendell,
Is Wheaton's Reports, 900, the Supreme Court held
the following language: The sole object for which
jurisdiction of cases between citizens Of different
States is vested in the courts of the United States
is to secure to all the administration of Justice upon
the same principles under which il is administered
between the citizens Of the same State Hence the
court has never hesitated conform to the settled
doctrines of the States on landed property, where
they fixed, and be satisfactorily ascertained
nor would il be ever led to deviae from them in any
case that bore the resemblance of impartial Justice.
Vide Brown Van Braun, Daas's Rep. 344,
and Cond. Rep. 1877, and cases cted.1 Nor need
apprehension be entertained that the federal courts
will disregard the provisions Of the statute of limit
atoms. This class of laws has always been re-
garded with favor by the federal courts None
have been considered as more universally sanction
ed by the practice Of nations, and the consent OF
mankind, than those which give peace and conf.
dence the actual tller of the soil All the reason
able purposes of justice are regarded subserved
ifthe courts of State have been left open TO the
prosecution Of suits, for such time as may raise a
presumption in the occupier of the soil that the
fruits of his labor are electually secured to him be-
yond the chances of litigation. That prescription is
thing of policy, growing out Of the experience OF
its necessity and the time after which suits or
actions shall be barred has been from remote an
tiquy, fixed by every nation, in virtue ofthat SOW.
ereigny from which it's legislation, for all persons
and property within its jurisdiction derives its au-
thority. Where question arose on the validity OF
the statute OF State, prescribing a shorter period
for bringing suit on the judgment Of a foreign tri.
bunal than on one obtained in the Of the State
it was held that such provision not repugnani
TO the constitution Of the United States; that there
was no clause in that instrument, from which il
could be pausby inferred that the States might
not legslate upon the remedy, in suits upon the
judgments Of other States. Bell u.s. Morrison, Pc.
tiers 360; McLuny Siman, Peters p. 3l21
"All controversies which may arise between ct
zens Of this State and aliens authorized sue will
be determined by the same rules and laws which