In controversies concerning the title to real property, the federal court always adminis ters the law as if it were sitting as a local court; Slaughter v. Glenn, 98 U. S. 244, 25 L. Ed. 122; Lowndes v. Huntington, 153 U. S. 17, 14 Sup. Ct. 758, 38 L. Ed. 615. So also of statutes of limitation ; Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 177, 15 Sup. Ct. 570, 39 L. Ed. 660.
Questions of international law must be de cided as matters of general law, uncontrolled by local decisions ; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. Ed. 1123. Decisions of the state court on questions of local law, affecting solely the internal po lice of the state or the construction of a municipal ordinance, must control ; Miller v. Ammon, 145 U. S. 421, 12 Sup. Ct. 884, 36 L. Ed. 759.
Local law or custom, established by re peated decisions of the highest courts of the state, becomes also the law governing courts of the United States sitting in that state ; Bucher v. R. Co., 125 U. S. 555, 8 Sup. Ct. 974, 31 L. Ed. 795 ; Detroit v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492, 10 Sup. Ct. 1012, 34 L. Ed. 260. This is particularly true as to decisions which establish a rule of property, and the rule is observed even as to points upon which the states are at variance among themselves ; Pet ers v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, 10 Sup. Ct. 354, 33 L. Ed. 696 ; May v. Tenney, 148 U. S. 60, 13 Sup. Ct. 491, 37 L. Ed. 368; and where the same statute receives a different interpre tation in different states, each will be follow ed by the federal courts as the true •nterpre tation for the particular state in question ; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stahley, 62 Fed. 363, 11 C. C. A. 88. The supreme court will follow the construction given by the state court to a state statute of limitations, even in a case decided the other way by the circuit court before the decision of the state court ; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316 ; and the low er federal courts will reverse their decision holding a state statute unconstitutional, when the state subsequently decides that it is con stitutional, if a final decree had not been en tered in the federal court; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Poe, 64 Fed. 9. In Forsyth v. City of Hammond, 71 Fed. 443, 18 C. C. A. 175,
however, the circuit court of appeals declined to follow the the 'supreme court of Indiana where the decision of the latter was render ed after argument and before decision in the federal court.
Federal courts follow territorial decisions. The construction of a territorial statute by the local courts is of great, if not controlling weight in the supreme court ; Lewis v. Her rera, 208 U. S. 309, 28 Sup. Ct. 412, 52 L. Ed. 506 ; which in considering the provisions of an ambiguous territorial statute will lean to the construction given to it by the terri torial supreme court ; Clason v. Matko, 223 U. S. 646, 32 Sup. Ct. 392, 56 L. Ed. 588 ; and generally the construction of a territorial stat ute by the local court is very persuasive up on the supreme court ; Crary v. Dye, 208 U. S. 515, 28 Sup. Ct. 360, 52 L. Ed. 595 ; and will ordinarily be followed by it ; English v. Arizona, 214 U. S. 359, 29 Sup. Ct. 658, 53 L. Ed. 1030 ; and will not ordinarily be re viewed ; Santa Fe County Com'rs v. New Mexico, 215 U. S. 296, 30 Sup. Ct. 111, 54 L. Ed. 202. Following this rule the supreme court has followed the construction given by the Hawaiian courts to a statute legitimating children born out of wedlock; Kealoha v. Castle, 210 U. S. 149, 28 Sup. Ct. 684, 52 L. Ed. 998 ; or a decision upon the effect of a judgment of a land commission re specting the title to land ; Leavers v. Atch erly, 222 U. S. 285, 32 Sup. Ct. 94, 56 L. Ed. 202.
As to questions of state law upon which the decisions of the state courts are con trolling in cases originating in or removed to federal courts, see note in 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415. It is only the highest state court which they follow ; decisions of inferior courts are merely persuasive ; Westerlund v. Mining Co., 203 Fed. 599, 609, 121 C. C. A. 627.
The provision of R. S. § 721, making the state law the rule of decision, embraces state rules of evidence in civil cases at common law ; Vance v.. Campbell, 1 Black (U. S.) 427, 17 L. Ed. 168 ; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 250, 5 Sup. Ct. 119, 28 L. Ed. 708 ; but not in equi ty cases ;- Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatch. 11, Fed. Cas. No. 12,633.