886 FBDEBAIi BEPOBTEB. �of 1789. However that may be, the various acts of congress, and the better decisions thereunder, look to the preservation of the con- stitutional rights of citizens, to a judicial determination of their con- troveraies in the federal courts, when fairly entitled thereto, and to a prevention of fraudaient or other contrivances, wherebj the federal should supersede, or be substituted for, the niore rightful jurisdiction of state courts. �There are several cases in which it is held that a hona fide trana- fer for value, although made for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to a federal court, should be held valid for jurisdictional purposes. Some of these cases are noted in Marion v. Ellis, 10 Fed. Ebp. 410» If any of said cases have gone so far as to hold that a formai trans- fer, without consideration, for the mere purpose of having a federal court obtain jurisdiction, this court cannot assent to such doctrine. None of those cases, however, rightly considered, can properly be held to advance such a rule. The ruling in this case does not cover cases of bona fide transfera for value. The rule as to promissory notes, etc., under the act of 1789, and as to contracta under the act of 1875, are especially suggestive as to actions in ejectment, wberein the rights of the parties are ordinarily dependent, if title is involved, upon local statutes. It is a familiar principle that" on questions of title the federal courts follow the interpretation given to state stat- utes by the court of last resort in the state. Its interpretation becomes a rule of property, and may be considered conclusive, not as in cases under the law marchant. Why, then, should not the state courts decide what is peculiarly in their province, unless a non-resi- dent, who, in good faith, bas a case for adjudication, chooses to come into a federal court ? Can a nominal graatee, who bas no real inter- est in the controversy, and to vrhom the realty bas been transferred only for the purpose of bringing, in bis name, a suit in the federal court, escape the consequences of a plea in abatement, or of an issue in the nature of a plea in abatement, whereby it may be shown that he is not the real party in interest, and, further, that his formai rela- tion to the controversy was solely to effect a fraud on the jurisdic- tion? Can it be that, under pretence of a constitutional right as to citizenship, such frauds can be successfully perpetrated ? There is, and long bas been, a statute of Missouri in the following words : �" Any conveyance of land made by a citizen or citizens of this state to a citizen or citizens of any of the stateS or territories of tiie United States, without a valuable or bonaflde consideration, and for the purpose. of, or with ��� �
