HOLMES V: O. & 0. KY. co. 85 �■which gave a judgmeht ereditor the right to maintaîn a suit in equity to subject his debtor's property to the payment of the judgment was a right which could be enforced in the courts of the United States, saying : "The courts of the United States, in the exercise of their chancery po-wers, will enforce equita- ble rights, whether they originate by contract, by local usage, or by the statute» of the state. " The case of Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. 160, is to the same effect. Some question is made by the defendant as to the right of the administrator existing by virtue of the laws of Oregon to maintain this suit in this forum, and the case of Mackay v. The Cent. By. ofN. J. 4 Fed. Eep. 617, ïs cited by counsel in support of the objection. This was a case on ail fours with the one under consideration, except that the action was at law in the circuit court of New York under a etatute of New Jersey, while the plaintiff was appointedad- ministratrix of the deceased under the laws of New York. The court held that the right of the New York administrator was limited by the laws of New York, and that the right to recover the damages on account of the death of the deceased was only conferred by the statute of New Jersey upon an administrator appointed under its laws, and therefore dis- missed the action. But no question was made but that the administrator appointed under the laws of New Jersey might maintain an action upon the statute in the proper United States court. But in this case the plaintiff is appointed ad- ministrator under the laws of Oregon, and the statute in ques- tion expressly confers upon him the right to recover damages for the death of his intestate. He sues as the trustee of an express trust to recover a fund for the beneatof those among whom the law will distribute the estate of his intestate. �It is also objected that it is not explicitly stated in the libel that the death was caused without the fault of the deceased. The libel states that the death was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and details the facta and circumstances of the transaction, from which it reasonably appears that it must have occurred wholly from such neglgence. My impression is that the libel is sufficient in this respect, and that it the defendant wants to raise the question of contributory negli- ����
