Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/459

 80NSTIBT V. EEBLBT. 4^7 �SONSTEBT ». KeBLBT. Io �(Oireuit Court, D. Minnesota. December, 1880.) �1, Commercial Law— Fbdbhal Courts— Btatb Coobtb. . �Where there is a conflict between the decisions of tho federal courts and those of a state court, upon a questicn of commercial l^w, the federal courts will follow the decisions of the state court if it appears that, by reason of the situation of the parties and of t&d subject-matter, a party would otherwise be subjected to a dpi(bje payment of the same debt, without the possibillty of relief from the federal courts. ' �2. 8amb— Promise to Pat Dbbt dp Third Partt. �Seld, therefore, under such circumstances, that a promise to pay the debt of a third party, upon a consideration moving from the debtor, will sustain a right of action by the creditor against such promisor in a federal court.— [Ed. �Motion ior a new trial. �Prier to September, 1878, one Porbes was the owner of a Btoek of dry goods kept in a store at Waseca, Minnesota. On thc I7th of that month Forbes executed a bill of sale of said stock of goods to the plaintiff, and also delivered to Min the poEisession thereof. Subsequently the sheriff, by virtue of certain writs of attachaient against Forbes, levied upon and took possession of the goods as the property of said Forbes, under the claim that the sale to plaintiff was fraudulent and Toid, because made to hinder, delay, and defraud the credit- ors of Forbes. The plaintitf paid for said stock to Forbes sorne |3,000 in cash, and assumed the payment of certain debts, held by a bank in Waseca against Forbes, amounting to about $3,800, makingin all |6,800, the price agreed upon. Upon the trial the court instrueted the jury, in substancej that the assumption by plaintiS of this indebtedness held by the bank was a sufficient payment of so much on account of his purehase of the stock of goods ; that plaintiff 's promise to pay said debts bound hit^i, and was a payment as much as the payment of a Uke amount in money. It is conceded that under the instruction, of the court the jury must necessarUy have found that plaintiff purchased without any fraudulent jntent, and without any notice of any such intent on the part ��� �