Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/626

 DAVIS V. JAMES. 619 �guardian may, by leave of thô county court, mortgage the real estate of his ward for a tenn of years, not exceeding the minority of the ward, or in fee, and that before any mortgage shall be made the guardian shall petition the county court for an order authorizing such mortgage to be made, m which petition shall be set out the condition of the estate, and the facts and circumstances on which the peti- tion is founded, and a description of the premises sought to be mortgaged. The statute then further provides that fore- closures of mortgages authorized by this act shall omly be made by petition to the county court of the county where letters of guardianship were granted, or, in case of non-resident minors, in the couuty in which the premises, or some part thereof, are situated, in which proceedings the guardian and ■ward shall be made defendants. �The argument of the learned counsel for defendants, in support of the pleas, is that the state bas supreme authority to legislate upon ail mattera of transmission and alienation of real property; that this power bas been exercised by the passage of this statute ; that the alienation of the premises in question by mortage or trust deed is only authorized by this statute ; that ail the provisions of the statute, including that which relates to the enforcement of remedy by foreclos- ure, were passed for the protection of the interests of minors, and became a part of the contract between the guardian and the person who made the loan and took the security ; that the complainant, as themortgagee or holderof the trust deed, was bound by the. state statute, and that the federal court is also bound to foUow the statute in determining questions relating to the enforcement of complainant's remedy upon his mortgages. �No question is involved as to the oitizenship of the parties. The plaintiff is a citizen of Massachusetts, and the defend- ants reside in this state. The debt secured by the trust deeds is due. If remedy were to be sought in the state courts in the form of foreelosure, it may be admitted that complain- ant would be obliged to prosecute his foreelosure in the ����