Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/628

 DAVIS ». JAMES. 621 �■within the state having jurisdiction of the parties. It can- not be witharawii from the cognizance of such federal court by any provision of state legislation that it shall only be enforced in a state court. The statutes of nearly every etate provide for the institution of numerous suits for partition, foreclosure, and the recovery of real property in particular courts and in the counties where the land is situ- ated, yet it has never been pretended that limitations of this character could affect, in any respect, the jurisdiction of the federal court over such suits, where the oitizenship of one of the parties was otherwise sufficient." �In this state there was formerly, and is perhaps at present, a stetute declaring in substance that ail actions against any county may be commenced and prosecuted in the circuit court of the county against which the action is brought, and the question arose whether a citizen of another state could' proseeute a suit in this court against the supervisors of Mercer county upon certain bonds issued by thenl on behalf of the county. A motion to dismisB the case for want of jurisdiction having been overruled in this court, and the case being removed to the supreme court, it was held by that court that there was no doubt of the constitutional right of the party to bring suit in the circuit court of the United States upon the obligations of the county of Mercer, not- withstanding the statute before referred to. Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118. And in the case of Ex parte Biddle, 2 Mason, 472, which was a proceeding by partition existing only by virtue of the laws of Massachusetts, the court said : "Parties entitled tosue in the courts of the United etates are, in general, entitled to ptirsue in such courts ail remedies for the vindication of their rights which the local laws of the state authorize to be pursued in its own courts." �Again, in the case of Warren v. The Wisconsin Valley R. Co. 6 Bissell, 425, it was said, in the opinion of the court, thaf'it was the intention of congress, under the power conferred by the constitution, to give to suitors having a right to sue in the federal courts remedies co-extensive with such rights. These remedies cannot be abridged or controUed by state legisla- �2* ����