Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/627

 620 PEDEEAL EEPORTER, �county court where letters of guardianship were granted to the mortgagor. �At the tiine these trust deeda were executed the judiciary act of the United States declared that circuits courts of the United States should have jurisdiction where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, should exceed the sum of $500, provided the citizenship of the parties should be such as to ■warrant it, and I regard it a satisfactory answer to the posi- tion that the provisions of the state statute, including those relating to remedies, became part of the contract betwoen the parties; that the statute of the United States which gave to complainant the right to proseoute his remedy in this court was also, with even higher potency, a part of the contract. �Decisions of the supreme court bearing upon the question seem clearly to determine that even in a case where the right of action is originally derivable wholly from the state stat- ute, which also designates the court in which such remedy may be enforced, state legislation cannot limit a party's right to enforce his remedy in the court thus designated by the stat- ute, provided the citizenship of the parties is such as would otherwise authorize the prosecution of such remedy in the federal court. �In the case of Railway Co. v. Whiton, 13 Wall. 285, there was a statute which declared a liability by a person or cor- poration to an action for damages when death ensues from a wrongful act, neglect or default of such person or corpora- tion, and which statute contained a proviso that such action should be brought, for a death caused within the state, in eome court established by the constitution and laws of the same. Here, although the right of action existed only in virtue of the statute, and only in cases where the death was caused within the state, the supreme court held that the proviso requiring action to be brought in the court of the state did not prevent a non-resident plaintiiï from removing the action to a federal court and maintaining it there. The court said : "In ail cases where a general right is thus conferred it can be enforced in any federal court ����