Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Davis v. Wechsler — Opinion of the Court

Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of Federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. Even if the order went only to the venue and not to the jurisdiction of the Court, each Director General in turn plainly indicated that he meant to adopt the position of his predecessor, and to insist that the suit was brought in the wrong county.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Davis v. Wechsler — Opinion of the Court

This is familiar as to the substantive law and for the same reasons it is necessary to see that local practice shall not be allowed to put unreasonable obstacles in the way. See American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19, 44 Sup. Ct. 11, 68 L. Ed. --, decided this day.
The Transportation Act of 1920 (Act Feb. 28, 1920, c. 91, § 206, [a] and [d] , 41 Stat. 456, 461, 462) in no way invalidates a defence good when it was passed.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature