injured person to revive, after the death of such injured person, an action brought by the decedent, in his lifetime, against the wrongdoer to recover damages for the injury, may be exercised by such administrator in the Circuit Court of the United States in an action brought by the decedent in a State court and removed to the Circuit Court in the decedent's lifetime.9 § 54. The United States Circuit Courts have the same equity jurisdiction as that possessed by the High Court death from a wrongful act, the stat- | Federal Court by any provision of ute expressly requiring all actions State legislation that it shall only be brought under it to be brought in enforced in a State court. . a State court of such State. Whenever a general rule as to property or personal rights, or injuries to either, is established by State legislation, its enforcement by a Federal Court in a case between proper parties is a matter of course, and the jurisdiction of the Court, in such case, is not subject to State limitation." The conclusion of the majority of the Court in Bigelow v. Nickerson, supra, is supported by dicta found in several cases, and especially by the remarks of Justice Field in Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 20 L. 571, and of Chief Justice Dixon in When that case was before the Whiton v. Chicago & N. W. R. State supreme court, a majority Co., 25 Wis. 424, 437, 3 Am. R. 101. of the court (Judges Cole and The point in judgment in the Paine) assumed, and the minority Whitton case was the removability (Chief Justice Dixon) expressly of a case of which the defendant | declared, that the provision of the claimed the State courts had exclusive jurisdiction under the same statute considered in Bigelow v. Nickerson, supra. In deciding that the case was a removable one, Justice Field used language broad enough to include a case originally brought in a United States Court. As shown hereafter, this is a material point under the present statute. Post § 63. In that case, it is said by Justice & N. W. R. Co., 25 Wis. 424, 437, 3 Field: Am. R. 101. "In all cases, where a general right is thus conferred, it can be enforced in any Federal Court within the State having jurisdiction of the parties. It cannot be withdrawn from the cognizance of such statute of Wisconsin there in controversy that suits thereunder should be brought only in a State court of such State, "is wholly inoperative and void for the purpose of defeating the Constitutional right of the citizens of one State to sue, in the Courts of the United States, citizens of another, or to have their causes removed into those Courts." Whiton v. Chicago Chief Justice Dixon cited Mercer County v. Cowles, 7 Wall. 118, 19 L. 86. 9 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Joy, 173 U. S. 226, 19 Sup. Ct. 387, 43 L. 677. of Chancery in England, when the Constitution was adopted.—“The equity jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Courts is the same that the High Court of Chancery in England possesses; is subject to neither limitation nor restraint by State legislation, and is uniform throughout the different States of the Union."1 State legislation cannot directly deprive them of their jurisdiction or any part of it; 2 nor can this be done indirectly by providing new forms of action for the enforcement of equitable rights in the State courts, or by failing to provide any remedy in the State courts.1 § 54. 3 Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 493, 8 C. C. A. 233, 59 Fed. 723; 212, 4 L. 372; United States v. Howland, Wheat. 108, 4 L. 526; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. 273, 275, 42 L. R. A. 225; Tice v. School District, 17 Fed. Pratt v. Northam, 19 Fed. Cas. 283, 5 McCr. 360; 1254, 5 Mason 95; Frazer v. Colorado Dressing & which fully support the statement Smelting Co., 5 Fed. 163, 2 McCr. quoted. The question is carefully considered and the early decisions collected in 11; Davis v. James, 2 Fed. 618, 10 Biss. 51; Benjamin v. Cavaroc, 3 Fed. Cas. Lamson v. Mix, 14 Fed. Cas. 1055, 186, 2 Woods 168; 6 Hunt Mer. Mag. 72. 2 Ante §§ 25, 30. 3 Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202, 14 Sup. Ct. 75, 37 L. 1052; Gordon v. Hobart, 10 Fed. Cas. 795, 2 Sumn. 401; Hall v. Yahoola River Min. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 284, 1 Woods 544; Kimball v. Mobile, 14 Fed. Cas. Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 489, 3 Woods 555; 86, 9 Sup. Ct. 237, 32 L. 630; Mayer v. Foulkrod, 16 Fed. Cas. Ridings v. Johnson, 128 U. S. 212, 1231, 4 Wash. C. C. 349; 9 Sup. Ct. 72, 32 L. 401; Putnam v. New Albany, 20 Fed. McConihay v. Wright, 121 U. S. Cas. 79, 4 Biss. 365. 201, 7 Sup. Ct. 940, 30 L. 932; 4 Smith v. Ft. Scott, H. & W. R. Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 19 L. Co., 99 U. S. 398, 25 L. 437. Suits to enforce rights cognizable by a court of equity when the United States Constitution was adopted, are within the equity jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts, either original or removal, though State statutes give new forms to suits in the State courts to enforce such rights. If a suit is one for the enforcement of an equitable right, its disguise under a new and statutory form, when commenced in a State court, will not prevent its removal to the United States Circuit Court. On the other hand, the fact that a court of equity of a State exercises a jurisdiction not within the domain of the equity courts of England, will not enlarge the equity jurisdiction of a United States Court sitting in such State.6 The common subjects of equity jurisdiction, enumerated and discussed by Justice Story, are accident, mistake, actual and constructive fraud, account, administration, legacies, confusion of boundaries, dower, marshalling of securities, partition, partnership, matters of rent, discovery, cancellation and delivery of instruments, specific performance and compensation and damages incident thereto, interpleader, bills quia timet, bills of peace, injunctions, express trusts, marriage settlements, terms for years, mortgages, assignments, trusts under wills and testaments, election and satisfaction, application of purchase money, charities, implied trusts, penalties and forfeitures, infants, idiots and lunatics, married women, set-off, establishing wills of real estate, awards, writs of ne exeat regno and supplicavit, bills of discovery, and bills to preserve and perpetuate evidence." Some of these subjects, however,-infants, idiots and luna 5 Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557, 13 | in England, acting under its judiSup. Ct. 503, 37 L. 279; cial capacity as a court of equity, possessed and exercised, at the time of the formation of the Constitution of the United States." Fon Cowley v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 159 U. S. 569, 16 Sup. Ct. 127, 40 L. 263. Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, tain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 369, 15 L. 16 L. 226. "The Courts of the United States cannot exercise any equity powers, except those conferred by acts of Congress, and those judicial powers which the High Court of Chancery 80. 7 Story's Equity Jurisprudence ; see also other standard works upon equity. Hamilton gives fraud, accident, trust and hardship, as the princi. tics, and charities under the cy pres power,-belong to a court of equity as parens patriæ; and a United States Court cannot exercise any power as parens patriæ.8 A United States Court of equity has no control over a State election for officers, or the title to any State office; and a State court of equity ordinarily does not have. So a Court of equity of the United States cannot enjoin the removal of a Federal officer.10 Nor has such a Court jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative acts of municipal corporations.11 § 55. "An enlargement of equitable rights by the statutes of the States may be administered by the National Courts as well as by the courts of the States." The United States Circuit Courts, as Courts of equity, may enforce any equitable right possessed by a plaintiff originating in State legislation; and may do this whether the suit be brought in the United States Circuit Court, or be removed thereto from a State court of competent jurisdiction.2 "Although the statute of a State or territory may not repal ingredients which may render | Co., 49 U. S. App. 1, 23 C. C. A. a matter "an object of equitable 609, 78 Fed. 7. rather than of legal jurisdiction." The Federalist, No. 80. Post § 61. 2 The principle stated in the text has been applied in a variety of cases; to a statutory action to Ex parte Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, quiet title to real estate under such 8 Sup. Ct. 482, 31 L. 402; Green v. Mills, 25 U. S. App. 383, 16 C. C. A. 516, 69 Fed. 852, 30 L. R. A. 90, reversing Mills v. Green, 67 Fed. 818; Gowdy v. Green, 69 Fed. 865; Harrison v. Hadley, 11 Fed. Cas. 649, 2 Dill. 229, 5 Chi. Leg. News 206, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 26, 44, 7 Am. Law Rev. 560; circumstances that there is no right to sue in equity without the statute and no adequate remedy at law, Bardon v. Land & River Imp. Co., 157 U. S. 327, 15 Sup. Ct. 650, 39 L. 719, affirming Laud & R. Imp. Co. v. Bardon, 45 Fed. 706; Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316, 10 Sup. Ct. 557, 33 L. 918; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First Holmes v. Oldham, 12 Fed. Cas. Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 5 Sup. Ct. 421, 1 Hughes 76. 10 White v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366, 213, 28 L. 733; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15, 18 Sup. Ct. 917, 43 L. 199, and cases | 3 Sup. Ct. 495, 28 L. 52; cited. 11 New Orleans Water Works Co. v. New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471, 17 Sup. Ct. 161, 41 L. 518. § 55. 1 Darragh v. H. Wetter Manuf'g Prentice v. Duluth Storage & F. Co., 19 U. S. App. 100, 7 C. C. A. 293, 58 Fed. 437; Harding v. Guice, 42 U. S. App. 411, 25 C. C. A. 352, 80 Fed. 162; strict or limit the equitable jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, and may not directly enlarge such jurisdiction, it may establish new rights or privileges which the Federal Courts may enforce on their equity or admiralty side, precisely as they Southern Pine Co. v. Hall, C. C. A. - 105 Fed. 84; Green v. Turner, 98 Fed. 756; compare De La Vergne Ref. Mach. Co. v. Montgomery Brewing Co., 46 Fed. 829; to an action to enforce, against Surgett v. Lapice, 8 How. 48, 12 heirs and devisees, a claim against L. 982; Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137, 15 L. 318; a decedent, pursuant to a statute, Boston & M. R. Co. v. Slocum, 77 Fed. 345; to a statutory action for partition to a right of a creditor of a decedent of real estate, to avoid a fraudulent conveyance made by decedent, McClaskey v. Barr, 42 Fed. 609; Aspen M. & S. Co. v. Rucker, 28 Fed. 220; Lilienthal v. Drucklieb, 80 Fed. 562; Ex parte Biddle, 3 Fed. Cas. 336, to a statutory action to declare void 2 Mason 472; a preference in an assignment for the benefit of creditors and to administer the assignment, Dictum in Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 58, 15 Sup. Ct. 24, 39 L. 69; to an action under the Illinois burnt records act, Wyman v. Mathews, 53 Fed. 678; Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338, 885; 10 Sup. Ct. 554, 33 L. 909; to an action to foreclose a mortgage Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. to an action to enforce a mechanic's, laborer's, or other statutory lien, Sheffield Furnace Co. v. With erow, 149 U. S. 574, 13 Sup. Ct. 936, 37 L. 853; Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. 476; a court of equity would have jurisdiction without a statute to set aside an assignment for fraud, Fleisher v. Greenwald, 20 Fed. 547, or to set aside a mortgage of the assigned property for fraud, Rumsey v. Town, 20 Fed. 558;— to a statutory proceeding supplemental to execution, Lanmon v. Clark, 14 Fed. Cas. 1119, 4 McLean 18; Lorman v. Clarke, 15 Fed. Cas. 915, 2 McLean 568; to a statutory action to wind up the business of an insolvent corporation, Darragh v. II. Wetter Manuf'g Hooven, O. & R. Co. v. Feather-Co., cited supra, note 1; stone, 99 Fed. 180; to a statutory right to enjoin the Gilchrist v. Helena, H. S. & S. collection of taxes illegally as |