282 CONTEE v. DAWSON.

legacy became vested as it did by her attaining her full age, or by
her marriage before or after the death of her mother, it was a chose
in action belonging to Ann R. Contee; and as all personal things are
under the power of the husband, he may either release or forfeit
them; (b) it is, therefore, upon that ground sufficient, that the hus-
band alone as defendant has appeared, and by his answer admitted,
that this claim, to which he had so become entitled in right of his
wife, had been satisfied.

But it is objected, on behalf of the defendant Eleanor Dawson,
that the answer of the defendant Philip A. L. Contee has not been
sworn to in the manner required by the course of the court; and
therefore cannot be considered as an answer for any purpose; and
is certainly not such an answer as will bind him and his wife so as
to justify Eleanor Dawson, as executrix of the trustee, in distribu-
ting the assets in payment of the proportions to which the other
legatees are entitled; since she has not assets sufficient to satisfy
all. This objection involves two inquiries; first, whether the an-
swer of the defendant Philip A. L. Contee is such an one as must
be received as effectual so far as it can operate for or against his
co-defendants; and secondly, whether Eleanor Dawson has in
truth alleged and shewn a deficiency of assets.

The first section of the fourth article of the constitution of the
United States delegates to congress the power to prescribe the
manner in which the public acts, the records, and the judicial pro-
ceedings of each state may be proved in every other state, and the
effect thereof. And congress have passed several acts in execu-
tion of this power. But those laws of the federal government
cannot be allowed to regulate the matter now under consideration;
because, an answer to a bill filed in this court, or indeed any other
portion of its proceedings, wherever it may be authenticated, or
wherever the person may reside from whom it may be derived,
must be deemed to all intents and purposes a record or judicial
proceeding of this state only, and not of any other state. It is,
therefore, perfectly obvious, that this federal law can have no direct
and positive application to the mode of authenticating answers,
or any other part of the judicial proceedings of this court, (c)

It is quite common for the courts of one nation to seek the aid
of the magistrates of foreign countries; and to ask to be allowed
to collect testimony, and obtain from them and under their autho-

(b) Cleaver v. Spurling, 2 P. Will 528.—(c) Gibson v, Tilton, 1 Bland, 352.