52
the case before us, was bound to follow it." p. 465. The single introductory paragraph in which "I" is substituted for "we," only serves to call more distinct attention to the use of the plural pronoun throughout the opinion.
How much more weight of authority and general acquiescence this decision would have commanded, if the majority of the judges had confined themselves to the point necessary to the judgment, and forborne to express so many extrajudicial opinions, is not within our province to discuss. We have freely exercised the right, which is allowed to every member of the profession, of controverting arguments and opinions advanced on any legal question by any individual, however distinguished by ability or position, so long as it is not judicially adjudged and settled. But upon the single point adjudicated, more deference is due to the deliberate judgment of the highest tribunal of the country. As two of the judges, however, and those not the least eminent, do not concur even in the judgment, we feel it to be our duty to examine the soundness of the positions upon which it rests.
There is not a perfect uniformity in the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, defining the extent to which the courts of the United States should follow the decisions of the State courts. But the true principle, which reconciles most of the cases, seems to be that decisions of the State courts are binding in matters of State policy, or questions governed by local rules, as to which it is essential that there be a uniform administration of law within the State, but comparatively immaterial whether the same rules prevail in all the States. Such are cases arising upon the construction of the Constitution and statutes of the State, local usages, or any well settled rules as to the title to real estate, whether depending upon common law, statute, or judicial decision. Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 524; Luther v. Borden, 7 Howard, 40; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 7 Howard, 818; Webster v. Cooper, 14 Howard, 504; Jackson v. Chew 12 Wheaton, 162; Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 Howard, 502. But on questions of the law merchant, or general principles of chancery, which are of universal application, and as to which uniformity of construction throughout the States is desirable, the supreme court of the United States does not follow the decisions of the State courts, unless satisfied of their correctness; Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 18: Neves v. Scott, 13 Howard, 272; and on those Subjects has even refused to allow any effect to statutes of the State. Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 658;
