The Judicial Code does not purport to em body all the law upon the subject to which it relates. Sections 292, 294, and 297 express ly bear upon the extent to which the code af fects or repeals prior laws; street & Smith v. Mfg. Co., 231 U. S. 348, 34 Sup. Ct. 73, 58 L. Ed. —.
The meaning of the phrase "drawn in ques tion," as it occurs in § 250 of the Judicial Code, is the same as in R. S. § 709, § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals act, and other statutes regulating territorial appeal ; U. S. v. Fisher, 227 U. S. 445, 33 Sup. Ct. 329, 57 L. Ed. 591.
If a case can be taken to the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of error under § 241, it cannot be taken there by certiorari § 240 ; U. S. v. Beatty, 232 U. S. 463, 34 Ct. 392, 58 L Ed.
The means of review of rulings in United States courts are prescribed by statute, by ancient English statutes, and the rules and practice of the federal courts, and are not affected by the "Conformity Act" nor the state laws or practice ; Boatmen's Bank v. Trower Bros. Co., 181 Fed. 804, 104 C. C. A. 314.
By R. S. § 721, the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, are to be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. In all cases depending upon the construction of a state statute, fed eral courts will follow the construction of the court of last resort of the state, when that construction is well settled, without re spect to its original soundness ; even when, in ignorance of a decision by the state court, the supreme court had construed the stat ute differently ; Fairfield v. County of Galla tin, 100 U. S. 47, 25 L. Ed. 544 ; or when, if it were an original question, the federal court would be of a different opinion ; Balkam v. Iron Co., 154 U. S. 177, 14 Sup. Ct. 1010, 38 L. Ed. 953.
While the United States courts follow the interpretation given to the laws of the state by their highest tribunals, yet in case of con flicting decisions, or in the absence of deci sions at the time of consideration by the United States courts, the rule is, of course, modified; Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. (U. S.) 139, 12 L. Ed. 85; Pease v. Peck, 18 How. (U. S.) 599, 15 L. Ed. 518. In the leading case of Burgess v. Seligman the limitations of the doctrine were thus stated by Bradley, J.: "The federal courts have an independent ju risdiction in the administration of state laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the state courts, and are bound to exercise their own judgment as to the meaning and effect of those laws. The existence of two co-ordinate jurisdictions in the same terri tory is peculiar, and the results would be anomalous and inconvenient but for the ex ercise of mutual respect and deference. Since the ordinary administration of the law is carried on by the state courts, it necessa rily happens that by the course of 'their deci sions certain rules are established which be come rules of property and action in the state, and have all the effect of law, and which it would be wrong to disturb. This is especially true with regard to the law of real estate and the construction of state constitutions and statutes. Such established
rules are always regarded by the federal courts, no less than by the state courts them selves, as authoritative declarations of what the law is. But where the law has not been thus settled, it is the right and duty of the federal courts to exercise their own judg ment, as they also always do in reference to the doctrines of commercial law and general jurisprudence. So when contracts and trans actions have been entered into, and rights have accrued thereon under a particular state of the decisions, or when there has been no decision of the state tribunals, the federal courts properly claim the right to adopt their own interpretation of the law applicable to the case, although a different interpretation may be adopted by the state courts after such rights have accrued. But even in such cases, for the sake of harmony and to avoid con fusion, the federal courts will lean toward an agreement of views with the state courts if the question seems to them balanced with doubt. Acting on these principles, founded as they are on comity and good sense, the courts of the United States, without sacrific ing their own dignity as independent tribu nals, endeavor to avoid, and in most cases do avoid, any unseemly conflict with the well considered decisions of the state courts. As, however, the very object of giving to the na tional jurisdiction to administer the laws of the states in controversies between citizens of different states was to institute independent tribunals, which, it might be supposed, would be unaffected by local preju dices and sectional views, it would be a dere liction of their duty not to exercise an inde pendent judgment in cases not foreclosed by previous adjudication." Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 Sup. Ct. 10, 27 L. Ed. 359, ap proved Pans v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 541, 2 Sup. Ct. 704, 27 L. Ed. 424. See, also, Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 348, 10 Sup. Ct. 554, 33 L. Ed. 909. Ordinarily, they will follow the latest settled decisions ; Green v. Neal, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 291, 8 L. Ed. 902 ; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black (U. S.) 599, 17 L. Ed. 261. But a change of decision by a state court in regard to the construction of a statute will not be allowed to affect rights acquired un der the former decision ; Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677, 25 L. Ed. 968 ; Ger man Savings Bk. v. Franklin County, 128 U. S. 538, 9 Sup. Ct. 159, 32 L. Ed. 519. See IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS, for a discussion of this doctrine, usually called the rule in Gelpcke v. Dubuque. It is otherwise when no rights have been acquired under the former decision ; Fairfield v. Coun ty of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47, 25 L. Ed. 544; Knox County v. Bank, 147 U. S. 91, 13 Sup. Ct. 267, 37 L. Ed. 93 ; or where the decision of the state court was made long after the rights in question accrued ; Bolles v. Brim field, 120 U. S. 759, 7 Sup. Ct. 736, 30 L. Ed. 786 ; Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393, 13 Sup. Ct. 638, 37 L. Ed. 495. The federal courts will not follow the decision of an in ferior court ; Patapsco Guano Co. v. Morri son, 2 Woods 395, Fed. Cas. No. 10,792.