Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/582

 670 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Union Township, 15 0. S. 437; and Hopple v. Hippie, 33 0. S. 117. �The verdict vras for the defendant upon the folio wing charge, delivered by Judge Baxter : �"You will have observed, gentlemen of the jury, from the the evidence and admissions of eounsel, that the question in this case bas been as many as three times decided adversely to the plaintiff by the supreme court of Ohio. No recovery could be had by the plaintiflf upon the facts in this case in any suit which it might prosecute in a state court ; therefor© the plaintiff hasinvoked the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, which are, by the constitution, specially chargea with the responsible duty of sustaining and enforcing th© obligation of contracts. This is a duty particularly imposed upon the federal courts. From this fact an erroneous im- pression prevails in the public mind that the law in reference to commercial paper, as administered by the national courts, is different from the law as administered by the state tribunals. This is a mistake. The law is the same as administered by the state and national courts. I do not wish to convey the idea that these legal and constitutional tribunals, expounding the law, do not in some instances make eonflicting decisions; but, when such conflict occurs, it arises from a diversity of opinion as to what the law is — from the fact that the law is imperfectly understood and erroneously interpreted by one or the other tribunal. The supreme court of the United States was created and is required by the constitution to construe, sustain, and enforce the obligation of contracts. Hence,' in oonflicts of decisions on such questions, if there shall be any between the state and national courts, the decis- ion of the national supreme court is paramount and controU- ing. But there should not be, and I believe there is not, any rivalry, jealousy, or hostility between the two Systems of judicial tribunals. Both are solicitons to interpret the laws impartially and correctly. It seems, however, to afford satis- faction to some persons to encourage the belief that there are two governments — national and state — ^operating in the same territory, and that the courts of the former invite con- ����