ORAVELLE V. MINNEAPOLIS & S:r. L. BY. CO.
which it cannot grant full relief, or in which it maybe brought into unnecessary conflict with the courts of the state. While maintaining with firmness the jurisdiction conferred upon us by law, we shall never provoke conflicts by any encroacl1ment upon the rights and powers of co-ordinate tribunals. Under the statutes of the state as they now stl\nd, the complainants have an ample remedy by commencing their proceedings in the probate court, and, if unsuccessful there, by prosecuting theiJ: appeal; while, so far as this court is concerned, it has clearly nO. jurisdiction over most of'the matters complained of in the bill and amended bill, and as to the others the question of jurisdiction is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. Under these circumstances, the plea to the jurisdiction will be sustained; and it is so ordered. DUNDY,
J., concurs.
See Domestk& Fureign Missionary Soc. v. Hinman,13 FED. REP. 161, and note, 167.
GRAVEI.LF. 'lJ.MINNtAl'OI.,IS
& ST.
LoUIS
Ry. Co.
IGtrcuit Court, D. J/inn6IJota.
JanusU'. 1882." 721, REv. ST.-ADMISSION OP
STATE STATUTE AS RULE OF DECISION-SECTION DEPOSITIONS.
Where depositions taken to be used in an action in a state court that has been dismissed would be admissible as evidence under the statute of the state irfanother l;Iuit subsequently brbught, and such second suit, after being, brought, has been removed from the state court into the United States circuit court. under the provision of section 721 of the Revised Statutes, lluch depOsitions are admissible in the circuit court.
At Law, for personal injuries. C. K. Davis, for plaintiff. James D. Springer. for defendant. MCCRARY, J. Section 721 of the Revised Statutes of the United States' provides that the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials ,where they at common law in the courts of the United States in apply. This provision embraces and requires tha' federal courts to follow the statutes of the several states "'hich prescribe rules of eviexcept where otherwise provided by the' federal cODi:'tituUon or
,
436
FEDERAL REPORTER.
laws. McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84; Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427; TFright v. Bales, 2 Black, 535; Dibblee v. Furniss, 4 Blatchf. 262; Haussknecht v. Claypool, 1 Black, 431; Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112; Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1; Brandon v. Loftus, 4 How. 127; Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 1. Section 29, c. 73, St. Minn., provides that "when the plaintiff in any action disconthlUes it, or it is dismissed for any cause, and an· oiher action is afterwards commenced for the same cause between the same parties, or their representatives, all depositions lawfully taken for the first action may be used in the second, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions and objections as if originally for the second action : provided, that the deposition has been duly' filed in the court where the first action was pending, and remained in custody of the court from the termination of the first action until the commencement of the second." This statute"will be followed as a rule of decision, in this court in accordance with the long line of adjudications above cited. This renders it unnecessary to decide whether the same ruling is required by the provisions of section 914 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The objection to the depositions is overruled. See lionstiby Vi
11
FBD. REP.
578, and note, 580.
GRAY and others,· doing business under the firm name of TAPER. SLEEVE PULLEY WORKS, Citizens of the State' of Pennsyl' vania, v. TAPER-SLEEVE PULLEY WORKS, a Corporation of the State of Iowa. {Circuit Court, W. D. Penns.1Jlvania: .May Term, 1883.\ , 1. TRADE NA)fE-RIG,H'r TO SELL ARTICLE-IN.n;rpCTION.
C., under·the style of A. B. Cook & Co., engaged for severl\l years at Erie, Pennsvlvania;, in the manufacture' of sundry parented devices, to one of ,which he gave name" taper-sleeveplll'ey," d:splaying on his factory the sign, Pulley Works.," In 1876 his establishment wt.s· by the sheriff to W., to whom C. assigned his patents. W. soon sold the establishment to on'e of the c0mplainants, with the exclusive right to said patents for the territory ea,llt of the .Mississippi river, and the right IJ,lso to sell the devices west of said river upon the payment of certain royalt'es, W. reserving to himself and assigr;is the 'righL to sell on like terms east of said nver. The cowplainantll adopted as their trade name· the designation "Taper-sleeve