proceeded to final judgment, notwithstanding section 955 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. If this be so, that section ought not to be construed as embracing the present case. ought it to be supposed that Congress intended that, in case of the removal of an action from a State court on the petition of the defendant prior to the death of the plaintiff, the federal court should ignore the law of the State in reference to the revival of pending actions, and make the question of revivor depend upon the inquiry whether the cause of action would have survived if no suit had been brought. If Congress could legislate to that extent, it has not done so. It has not established any rule that will prevent a recognition of the State law under which the present action was originally instituted, and which, at the time the suit was brought, conferred the right, when the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries died before final judgment, to revive in the name of his personal representative. Cases like this may reasonably be expected out of the general rule prescribed by section 955. These views are in harmony with section 721 of the Revised Statutes, which was brought forward from the judiciary act of 1789 (1 Stat. 92, c. 20, sec. 34), and provides that "the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply;" and also with section 914, providing that "the practice, pleadings and forms. and modes of proceeding in civil causes, other than equity and admiralty causes, in the circuit and district courts, shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings and forms and modes of proceeding existing at the time in like causes in the court of record of the State within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding." They are in accord also with what was said in Martin's Adm'r v. Railroad Co., 151 U. S. 673, 692, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541, in which, after referring to Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U. S. 76, 80, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423, this court said: "In that case, the right in question being of an action for a penalty under a statute of the United States, the question whether it survived was governed by the laws of the United States. But in the case at bar the question whether the administrator has a right of action depends upon the law of West Virginia, where the action was brought and the administrator appointed. Rev. St. sec. 721; Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. 212." It is scarcely necessary to say that the determination of the question of the right to revive this action in the name of Hervey's personal representative is not affected in any degree by the fact that the deceased received his injuries in the State of Indiana. The action for such injuries was transitory in its nature, and the jurisdiction of the Ohio Court to take cognizance of it upon personal service or on the appearance of the defendant to the action cannot be doubted. Still less can it be doubted that the question of the revivor of actions brought in the courts of Ohio for personal injuries is governed by the laws of that State, rather than by the law of the State in which the injuries occurred. The question propounded to this court must be answered in the negative. It will be so certified to the Circuit Court of Appeals. TABLE OF CASES CLASSIFIED. [This Table shows the Cases Reported, arranged according to States in the order in which they appear in this volume, and classified according to the cause of action and the injuries sustained, so far as the facts disclose, together with a classification of the actions against corporations under their respective titles, as for instance, Carriers of Freight, Carriers of Passengers, Municipal Corporations, Railroad and Street Railroad Companies, etc., and actions between Landlord and Tenant, Master and Servant, etc. Notes of cases are indicated by the letter n preceding the number of the page on which the same appear in this volume.] Alighting from Electric Car. Light & Power Co. (N. C.)...... 242 245 Alighting from Train. Rickert v. Southern R'y Co. (N. Missouri, K. & T. R'y Co. of Texas 445 102 245 Sowash v. Consolidated Traction Alighting from Street Car in Lorance v. Hillyer (Neb.)... 184 |