Opinion of the Court.

36 bonds, Lynde held and owned other bonds secured by the mortgage of the Columbus and Indianapolis Central Railway Company to Parkhurst, trustee, above referred to, being some of the 821 bonds before described.

The Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railway Company made default in the payment of the interest coupons upon said 821 bonds due on the first day of May, 1875, and on the first day of November, 1875, and the interest coupons were not paid until after June 30, 1876, when they were paid by or on behalf of the receivers herein before mentioned, all which facts were known to Lynde at the time he purchased the 36 bonds described in the petition.

At the time of the demand made by Lynde upon Parkhurst, trustee, hereinafter set forth, and at the time of the commencement of this action, interest coupons which had theretofore fallen due upon more than seven hundred of said one thousand bonds described in said mortgage had been paid.

On or about the 27th day of June, A.D. 1891, at Newark, in the State of New Jersey, Lynde made a personal request and demand in writing of Parkhurst as trustee, to commence an action for the foreclosure and sale of the premises in accordance with the provisions of the deed of trust, for and on account of the default made by the Columbus and Indianapolis Central Railway Company in the payment of the coupons upon the 36 bonds; and then and there offered to the trustee sufficient security and indemnity to protect him against all expenses and personal responsibility by him to be made and incurred in the commencement and prosecution of an action for the foreclosure and sale of the premises. Parkhurst as such trustee refused to take the action requested.

The Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railway Company and the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company have neglected and refused to pay the coupons due upon each of the bonds described in the petition, being coupons from and including coupons maturing May 1, 1879, to and including coupons maturing May 1, 1892, the last two of which fell due since the commencement of this suit.

Opinion of the Court.

On the 1st day of October, 1890, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company made its mortgage to the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company of New York, and to W. N. Jackson of Indiana, as trustee, for the purpose of securing an issue of bonds to be made by that company to amount in the total to 75,000 bonds at the par value of $1000 each, to be issued as in said mortgage set out, and upon the property described in the answer and cross-petition of the said Farmers' Loan and Trust Company filed in this cause, including the line of railroad and other property connected therewith, described in the petition of the plaintiff herein; that said mortgage was duly recorded as required by law in all of the counties in the several States through or into which that line runs; that by virtue of that mortgage there have been issued bonds to the total number of 5318, being the bonds numbered from 1501 to 6818, both inclusive, and amounting in the total to $5,318,000; and that said bonds are now outstanding and in full force, and no default has been made in the payment of interest thereon.

As conclusions of law from the foregoing facts, the court of common pleas found the equities of the case in favor of Lynde. It held that the 36 bonds and the coupons thereto annexed were the valid and binding obligations of the Columbus and Indianapolis Central Railway Company and of the Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central Railway Company; that Lynde was the owner and holder of those bonds and coupons, and each of them, as well as the coupons that accrued May 1, 1879, to May 1, 1891, inclusive; that there was due to him on such coupons, down to the entry of the decree, the sum of $47,673.37; and that under and by virtue of the said mortgage or deed of trust described in the petition Lynde had a valid and subsisting lien, to secure said bonds and coupons, upon the railroad property described in the petition as of November 1, 1864, and was entitled to a decree for the payment of the sum so found due. A decree was subsequently entered in conformity to these conclusions. Upon a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Franklin County that judgment was affirmed. The judgment of the latter court was

Opinion of the Court.

also affirmed upon writ of error to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

While the cause was pending in the Supreme Court of the State, Lynde died, and the Long Island Loan and Trust Company qualified as his executor.

The first question to be considered relates to the jurisdiction of this court to review the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

The contention of the defendant in error is that the record presents no Federal question which this court will review; and that the state court based its decision upon an independent ground, not involving a Federal question, but depending upon principles of general law and broad enough to sustain its judgment. Its further contention is that the Supreme Court of Ohio rightly held that neither Lynde nor the trustee, Parkhurst, were affected by the proceedings in the foreclosure suits instituted in the Circuit Courts of the United States

Upon looking into the record, we find that the defendant railway company claimed in its answer that if a lien at any time attached to the property in question to secure the 36 bonds purchased by Lynde, such lien was wholly divested and discharged by the above proceedings in the Federal courts under which that company claims title. This, it would seem, was such an assertion of a right and title under an "authority exercised under the United States" as gives this court jurisdiction to reëxamine the final judgment of the state court. Rev. Stat. § 709.

In Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 21 Wall. 130, 134, 135,- which was a suit to subject certain lands in satisfaction of a debt secured by mortgage, and for the amount of which debt judg ment had been obtained, the defence was rested upon the ground that the defendant purchased the property at a sale made under a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in a named case, "free of all mortgages and incumbrances and especially from the alleged mortgage of the plaintiff." This defence was not recognized by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the case was brought to this court by writ of error. One of the ques

Opinion of the Court.

tions considered was as to the jurisdiction of this court under the act of February 5, 1867, which gives a writ of error to the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, "where any title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under or authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or immu nity specially set up or claimed under such authority." Rev. Stat. § 709; act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, 14 Stat. 385. Mr. Justice Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "Where a state court refuses to give effect to the judgment of a court of the United States rendered upon the point in dispute, and with jurisdiction of the case and the parties, a question is undoubtedly raised which under the act of 1867 may be brought to this court for revision. The case would be one in which a title or right is claimed under an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against the title or right so set up. It would thus be a case arising under the laws of the United States establishing the Circuit Court and vesting it with jurisdiction; and hence it would be within the judicial power of the United States, as defined by the Constitution; and it is clearly within the chart of appellate power given to this court, over cases arising in and decided by the state courts." Having disposed of the question of jurisdiction, the court then inquired whether the state court, in overruling the defence, had given proper validity and effect to the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States. Upon this point the court said: "The only effect that can be justly claimed for the judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States is such as would belong to judgments of the state courts rendered under similar circumstances. Dupasseur & Co. were citizens of France, and brought the suit in the Circuit Court of the United States as such citizens; and, consequently, that court, deriving its jurisdiction solely from the citizenship of the parties, was in the exercise of jurisdiction. to administer the laws of the State, and its proceedings were had in accordance with the forms and course of proceeding in the state courts. It is apparent, therefore, that no higher sanctity or effect can be claimed for the judgment of the

Opinion of the Court.

Circuit Court of the United States rendered in such a case. under such circumstances than is due to the judgments of the state courts in a like case and under similar circumstances. If by the laws of the State a judgment like that rendered by the Circuit Court would have had a binding effect as against Rochereau, if it had been rendered in a state court, then it should have the same effect, being rendered by the Circuit Court. If such effect is not conceded to it, but is refused, then due validity and effect are not given to it, and a case is made for the interposition of the power of reversal conferred upon this court. We are bound to inquire, therefore, whether the judgment of the Circuit Court thus brought in question would have had the effect of binding and concluding Rochereau if it had been rendered in a state court. We have examined this question with some care, and have come to the conclusion that it would not."

The same question was again before this court in Crescent Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union, 120 U. S. 141, 146, which was an action for malicious prosecution, the defence being that the existence of probable cause had been previously determined by a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States. It was contended that the Supreme Court of the State failed to give proper effect to that judgment, and thereby denied to the defendant a right arising under the authority of the United States. The case came here upon writ of error, and the jurisdiction of this court to review the final judgment was sustained. Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for the court, said: "It must, therefore, be conceded that the sole question to be determined is, did the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in deciding against the plaintiffs in error, give proper effect to the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States, subsequently reversed by this court? It is argued by counsel for the defendant in error that this does not embrace any Federal question; that the effect to be given to a judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in Louisiana by the courts of that State is to be determined by the law of Louisiana, or by some principle of general law as to which the decision of the state court is final;