But  on  this  subject  we  are  not  without  precedents
establishing  the  position  we  have  taken.  The  case
of  Dere  v.  Jones*  is  in  point.  An  act  of  the  Legis-  •2M'Lean,  78.
lature  of  Indiana,  passed  in  1824,  limits  the  lien  of
judgments  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  that  State,  to  the
counties  in  which  the  judgments  were  entered.
And  it  was  contended  in  that  case  as  in  this,  that
judgments  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States
should  be  subject  to  the  same  rule.  But  it  was  de-
cided by  Mr.  Justice  M*Lean,  that  this  act  could
not  apply  in  the  manner  contended  for  to  judgments
rendered  in  that  court.  "Effect,"  says  he,  "must  be
given  to  the  provisions  of  this  law,  so  far  at  least  as
they  are  adapted  to  the  organization  of  this  court.
If  the  rules  of  the  proceeding  by  the  Circuit  Courts
of  the  State  be  followed  by  this  court,  effect  is  given
to  them  without  reference  to  the  limited  jurisdiction
of  these  courts.  The  limits  of  the  State  in  the  ex-
ercise of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  courts  is  as  the  limits
of  the  county  to  the  heal  courts.  The  principles  of
the  State  law  are  adopted,  but  the  instruments
which  give  effect  to  these  principles  are  necessarily
different,  and  they  are  made  to  operate  throughout


204


LOMBARD  VS.  BAYARD.
