BANK OP EHBRMAH V. 4PPEES0K, 31 �rights of the parties under that law. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Keary y. Farmers' e Merchants' Bank, là. 89; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517; Dromgoole v. Farmers' e Merchants' Bank, 2 How. 241; 1 Am. Law. Eer. (N. S.) 211, 226. �It is said in Gregg v. Weston, 7 Biss. 360, that congres? meant by "the law marchant," as used in the act of March 13, 1876, the law of contract goveming the note, and that the statute of the state entera into and becomes a part of the contract. Whether this would be so as to restrictive statutes may be doubtful under the above decisions, particularly Wat- son V. Tarpley, supra. I must oonfeas that if the state bas power, by legislation, to enlarge the commercial law, it does not seem very clear why it shonld net bave power to restriet it in the same way ; but there can be no doubt that restric- tions are not binding. No case bas, however, been cited which holds that a statute oî a state enlarging the negotiabil- ity of bills and notes is not binding on the federal courts. On the contrary, such statutes are frequently enforoed. The latest case I find is Oates v. Nat. Bank, 100 U. S. 239. There are many others. Nearly ail the cases either construe the statute of Anne as adopted by the states, or the statutes in lieu of it regulating the subject of negotiable paper. �The resuit of the authorities seems to be that while the decisions of the state courts construing contracts under the general commercial law are not binding as rules of property or rules of construction on the federal courts, nor are state statutes which restrict or impair the rights and remedies se- cured to the citizens of the several states under the general commercial law, or which divest the federal courts of the cog- nizance of those rights and remedies, those statutes which enlarge and extend the general commercial law will be en- forced. It is so in equity cases. While the federal courts uniformly admiuister the equitable rights and remedies of the general law, and will not permit any restriction by state legis- lation or judicial decision, they recognize and enforce any new equitable right given by the legislature of the states. Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503 ; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, at p. 21. �The motion for a new trial is overruled. ����
