Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/50

 38 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and that, independently of the act of 1872, (Eev. St. § 914,) process eo indorsed was the proper process to be used in such a case, and that the only effect of the act of 1872 was to modify the practice in this respect so far as the state practice had been modified in the re-enactment of the act of 1788 in the Eevised Statutea of New York. These modifica- tions were in the form of the indorsement, as above pointed ont, and in extending the requirement of an indorsement to ail suits for penalties or forfeituresl �It is argued, however, that the New York statute related only to suits for penalties declared under the laws of New York; and this, in one sense, is correct, since no court in the state would take cognizance of a suit to enforoe a penalty declared by any law other than that of the state of New York. But the statute, as a statute of procedure, is not to be thus limited and restricted by construction. The act made in effect a different kind of process necessary in suits for penal- ties as a general rule of procedure, as well penalties thereto- fore declared by existing statutes, as to penalties thereaf ter to be declared by any statute of wbatever nature such penalties might be, if given to any person suing therefor. The law was not limited by its terms or reason to those penalties declared by the laws of New York then existing, but it made a distinc- tion between suits for penalties and other suits, which was capable of being applied to suits in the United States courts. And I see no reason why the act of congress adopting the state "forms of writs" and "modes of process" should be so construed as to exclude this distinction. It would be too narrow a construction of the act of congress thus to restrict its operation. �It is argued, also, that the jurisdiction of this court cannot be made to depend upon a state statute, though its forms of procedure may be made so to do ; that service of a writ out of this court, under its seal, gives jurisdiction over the per- son. But where the act of congress adopts the form of process used in the state courts, and the state law has prescribed an indorsed process in a certain class of suits, the use of such indorsed process in that class of suits is, it would seem, also ����