Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

“ We take it that there is no doubt that the Massachusetts principle would be appied in the Courts of the United States, Dushane v. Benedict, 120 U.S. 630, 7 S.C.t. 696, 30 L. Ed. 810; and no greater doubt if the principle were established by a code. Clement v. Field, 147 U.S. 467, 475, 13 S.C.t. 358, 37 L. Ed. 244; Pacific Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U.S. 531, 10 S.C.t. 166, 33 L. Ed. 450; Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U.S. 671, 6 S.C.t. 557, 29 L. Ed. 764. Giving the counterclaim the formality of a separate suit hardly is a sufficient reason for refusing to apply the local policy and law. ”

“ Mr. Langdell observes that there is no necessity for such ceremony in the nature of things 'for, the plaintiff being already in court qua plaintiff by his own voluntary act, it is reasonable to treat him as being there for all the purposes for which justice to the defendant requires his presence.' Langdell, Eq. ”

“ The case was dismissed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for want of jurisdiction. 42 F. (2d) 362; 43 F. (2d) 99. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 51 S.C.t. 89.
We have to consider the Massachusetts law so far as it applies to counterclaims arising out of the same contract that was sued upon by the Virginia Company. If there should be any objections to a wider application, they do not affect the respondent and are not open here. Hatch v. ”