[540] Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134 (1847); Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 (1864).

[541] Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495 (1850); Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595 (1856); Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How. 517 (1856).

[542] Lane v. Vick, 3 How. 464 (1845); Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495 (1850); Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 (1864).

[543] 149 U.S. 308, 401-404 (1893).

[544] 215 U.S. 349, 370 (1910).

[545] 276 U.S. 518 (1928).

[546] Ibid. 533. Justice Holmes was influenced in part by the article of Charles Warren, New Light On The History Of The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 81-88 (1923), in which Mr. Warren produced evidence to show that Justice Story's interpretation in the Tyson Case was contrary to the intention of the framers of the act. Mr. Warren did not, however, contend that the Tyson rule was unconstitutional. Justice Holmes was joined in his dissent by Justices Brandeis and Stone. In addition to judicial dissatisfaction with the Tyson rule as manifested in dissents, disapproval in Congressional quarters resulted in bills by Senators Walsh and Norris in the 70th and 71st Congresses, S. 3151, 70th Cong., 1st. sess., S. Rept. 626 of Committee on the Judiciary, March 27, 1928; S. 4357, 70th Cong., 2d. sess., S. Rept. 691, Committee on the Judiciary, May 20, 1930; S. 4333, 70th Cong., 1st. sess.; S. 96, 71st Cong., 1st. sess.

[547] 293 U.S. 335 (1934).

[548] This concept was first used by Justice Bradley in Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 21 (1883).

[549] 293 U.S. 335, 339.

[550] 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

[551] 304 U.S. 64, 69-70, 77-78.

[552] Ibid. 79-80.

[553] 304 U.S. 64, 80-90.

[554] Ibid. 90, 91-92.

[555] 311 U.S. 223 (1940).

[556] 311 U.S. 169 (1940). This decision has been thoroughly criticized by Arthur L. Corbin in The Laws of the Several States, 50 Yale L.J. 762 (1941). See also Mitchell Wendell, Relations Between Federal and State Courts (New York, 1949), 209-223. This book contains a good account of the operation of the Tyson and Tompkins rules, pp. 113-247.

[557] 333 U.S. 153 (1948). For other cases applying the rule that decisions of State intermediate courts are binding unless there is convincing evidence that the State law is otherwise, see Six Companies of California v. Highway Dist., 311 U.S. 180 (1940); Stoner v. New York Life Ins. Co., 311 U.S. 464 (1940).

[558] Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Co., 311 U.S. 538 (1941).

[559] 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1652; 62 Stat. 944 (1948). In 1938, the year of the Tompkins decision, the Conformity Act of 1872 (17 Stat. 196 Sec. 5) was superseded; and from that time until the enactment of 62 Stat. 944, the federal courts were guided in diversity cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure formulated by the Supreme Court by virtue of the authority delegated it, in 1934, by 48 Stat. 1064.

[560] Ruhlin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 202 (1938).

[561] 326 U.S. 99 (1945).

[562] Ibid. 108-109.

[563] Ibid. 109. Justice Rutledge wrote a dissent in which Justice Murphy concurred. Justice Rutledge objected to the rigid application of a statute of limitations to suits in equity and to the implication that Congress could not authorize federal courts to administer equitable relief in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties, notwithstanding State statutes of limitations barring such suits in State courts. In his view, if any change were to be made, it was for Congress and not the Court to make it. In line with this ruling see Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & W. Co., 337 U.S. 530 (1949); also Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 555 (1949).

[564] 2 Story, Commentaries, 467 Sec. 1696 (2d. ed., 1851).

[565] An interesting case which reached the Supreme Court under this clause was Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292 (1815). In his opinion for the Court, Justice Story took occasion to assert that grants of land by a State to a town could not afterwards be repealed so as to divest the town of its rights under the grant. Ibid. 326; cf. Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923).

[566] The Exchange v. McFaddon, 7 Cr. 116 (1812); Berizzi Bros. Co. v. S.S. Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562 (1926); Compania Espanola v. The Navemar, 303 U.S. 68 (1938); Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 134 (1938).

[567] Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313, 330 (1934).

[568] Ibid.

[569] The "Sapphire," 11 Wall. 164, 167 (1871).

[570] Ibid. 167. This case also held that a change in the person of the sovereign does not affect the continuity or rights of national sovereignty, including the right to bring suit, or to continue one that has been brought.

[571] Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 137 (1938); citing Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 212 (1890); Matter of Lehigh Valley R. Co., 265 U.S. 573 (1924). Whether a government is to be regarded as the legal representative of a foreign State is, of course, a political question.

[572] Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 134 (1938); citing United States v. The Thekla, 266 U.S. 328, 340, 341 (1924); United States v. Stinson, 197 U.S. 200, 205 (1905); The Davis, 10 Wall. 15 (1870); The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 159 (1869). See also Ex parte Republic of Colombia, 195 U.S. 604 (1904).

[573] Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126, 137 (1938). Among other benefits which the Court cites as not extending to foreign States as litigants include exemption from costs and from giving discovery. Decisions are also cited to the effect that a sovereign plaintiff "should so far as the thing can be done, be put in the same position as a body corporate." Ibid, note 2, pp. 134-135.

[574] 5 Pet. 1, 16-20 (1831).

[575] Hodgson & Thompson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cr. 303 (1809).

[576] Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136 (1829).

[577] Susquehanna & Wyoming V.R. & C. Co. v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 (1871). See, however, Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 144 U.S. 119 (1892), which held that a lower federal court had jurisdiction over a proceeding to impeach its former decree, although the parties were new and were both aliens.

[578] Browne v. Strode, 5 Cr. 303 (1809).

[579] 2 Dall. 419 (1793). For an earlier case where the point of jurisdiction was not raised, see Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402 (1792). For subsequent cases prior to 1861, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 (1838); Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478 (1855).

[580] Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 98 (1861).

[581] 1 Cr. 137 (1803).

[582] Ibid. 174. See also Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 (1796). This exclusive interpretation of article III posed temporary difficulties for Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), where he gave a contrary interpretation to other provisions of the Article. The exclusive interpretation as applied to original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been followed in Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75 (1807); New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284 (1831); Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65 (1844); Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243, 252 (1864); and Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 98 (1869). In the curious case of Ex parte Levitt, Petitioner, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), the Court was asked to purge itself of Justice Black on the ground that his appointment to it violated the second clause of section 6 of Article I. Although it rejected petitioner's application, it refrained from pointing out that it was being asked to assume original jurisdiction contrary to the holding in Marbury v. Madison.

[583] 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

[584] 262 U.S. 447 (1923).

[585] 157 U.S. 229, 261 (1895). Here the Court refused to take jurisdiction on the ground that the City of Oakland and the Oakland Water Company, a citizen of California, were so situated that they would have to be brought into the case, which would make it then a suit between a State and citizens of another State and its own citizens. The same rule was followed in New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U.S. 52, 58 (1917); and in Louisiana v. Cummins, 314 U.S. 577 (1941). See also Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, 163 (1922). For the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in specific classes of cases see the discussion of suits affecting ambassadors and suits between States, supra, pp. 571, 591-593.

[586] Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884).

[587] 127 U.S. 265 (1888).

[588] 1 Stat. 73, 80.

[589] 127 U.S. 265, 297. Note also the dictum in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 398-399 (1821) to the effect that "* * * the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in cases where a State is a party, refers to those cases in which, according to the grant of power made in the preceding clause, jurisdiction might be exercised in consequence of the character of the party, and an original suit might be instituted in any of the federal courts; not to those cases in which an original suit might not be instituted in a federal court. Of the last description, is every case between a State and its citizens, and, perhaps every case in which a State is enforcing its penal laws. In such cases, therefore, the Supreme Court cannot take original jurisdiction."

[590] Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930).

[591] 3 Dall. 321 (1796). Justice Wilson dissented from this holding and contended that the appellate jurisdiction, as being derived from the Constitution, could be exercised without an act of Congress or until Congress made exceptions to it.

[592] Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cr. 307 (1810).

[593] 6 Wall. 318 (1868); 7 Wall. 506 (1869).

[594] 15 Stat. 44 (1868).

[595] 7 Wall. 506, 514. The Court also took occasion to reiterate the rule that an affirmation of appellate jurisdiction is a negative of all other and stated that as a result acts of Congress providing for the exercise of jurisdiction had "come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to * * * it." It continued grandly: "* * * judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer." Ibid. 513, 515.

[596] See especially the parallel case of Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85 (1869). For cases following Ex parte McCardle, see Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U.S. 398, 491 (1878); Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.S. 487, 497 (1885); Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 82, 86 (1892); Missouri v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 292 U.S. 13, 15 (1934); Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426 (1943). See also United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393, 399-400 (1908), where it was held that there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court except as an act of Congress confers it.

[597] 105 U.S. 381 (1882).

[598] Ibid. 386. See also Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103, 119 (1847); National Exchange Bank v. Peters, 144 U.S. 570 (1892); American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville T. & K.W.R. Co., 148 U.S. 372 (1893); Colorado Central Consol. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U.S. 138 (1893); St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281 (1908); Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533 (1926).

[599] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).

[600] Ibid. 374.

[601] Ibid. 331. This recognition, however, is followed by the statement that "the whole judicial power of the United States should be at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority."

[602] 2 Commentaries, Sec. 1590-1595.

[603] 1 Stat. 73, Sec. 9-11.

[604] Ibid.

[605] Ibid. Sec. 14, 15, 17, 18.

[606] Ibid. Sec. 16.

[607] Dall. 8 (1799).

[608] Ibid. 9.

[609] Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75, 93 (1807). Two years later Chief Justice Marshall in Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cr. 61 (1809), held for the Court that the right to sue does not imply a right to sue in a federal court unless conferred expressly by an act of Congress.

[610] 7 Cr. 32 (1812).

[611] Ibid. 33.

[612] Ibid.

[613] 12 Pet. 657, 721-722 (1838).

[614] 3 How. 236 (1845).

[615] Ibid. 244-245. To these sweeping assertions of legislative supremacy Justices Story and McLean took vigorous exception. They denied the authority of Congress to deprive the courts of power and vest it in an executive official because "the right to construe the laws in all matters of controversy is of the very essence of judicial power." In their view the act as interpreted violated the principle of the separation of powers, impaired the independence of the judiciary, and merged the executive and judicial department. Dissent of Justice McLean, pp. 264 and following.

[616] 8 How. 441 (1850).

[617] Ibid. 449.

[618] Rice v. M. & N.W.R. Co., 1 Bl. 358, 374 (1862); Mayor of Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 251-252 (1868); United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484, 488 (1868); Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 104 (1868); case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 557-558 (1874); Morgan v. Gay, 19 Wall. 81, 83 (1874); Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U.S. 10, 18 (1876); Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 211 (1890); Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U.S. 150, 158 (1893); Johnson Steel Street Rail Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252, 260 (1894); Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U.S. 511, 513-521 (1898); Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U.S. 165, 167 (1904); Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1, 24 (1906); Venner v. Great Northern R. Co., 209 U.S. 24, 35 (1908); Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 218 U.S. 357, 358 (1910); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233, 234 (1922). See also Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938); Federal Power Commission v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 307 U.S. 156 (1939).

[619] Mayor of Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 251-252 (1868). The rule of Cary v. Curtis and Sheldon v. Sill was restated with emphasis many years later in Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234 (1922), where Justice Sutherland, speaking for the Court, proceeded to say to article III, Sec. 1 and 2: "The effect of these provisions is not to vest jurisdiction in the inferior courts over the designated cases and controversies but to delimit those in respect of which Congress may confer jurisdiction upon such courts as it creates. Only the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived directly from the Constitution. Every other court created by the general government derives its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress. That body may give, withhold or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion, provided it be not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution. * * * The Constitution simply gives to the inferior courts the capacity to take jurisdiction in the enumerated cases, but it requires an act of Congress to confer it. * * * And the jurisdiction having been conferred may, at the will of Congress, be taken away in whole or in part; and if withdrawn without a saving clause all pending cases though cognizable when commenced must fall."

[620] 56 Stat. 23 (1942).

[621] 319 U.S. 182 (1943).

[622] 321 U.S. 414 (1944).

[623] Ibid. 468.

[624] See infra, pp. 515-528.

[625] 26 U.S.C.A. 3653.

[626] See for example Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189 (1883); Cheatham v. United States, 92 U.S. 85 (1875); Shelton v. Platt, 139 U.S. 591 (1891); Pacific Steam Whaling Co. v. United States, 187 U.S. 447 (1903); Dodge v. Osborn, 240 U.S. 118 (1916).

[627] Dodge v. Brady, 240 U.S. 122, 126 (1916).

[628] Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922); Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U.S. 557 (1922); Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498, 509 (1932).

[629] Enjoining the Assessment and Collection of Federal Taxes Despite Statutory Prohibition, 49 Harv. L. Rev. 109 (1935).

[630] Allen v. Regents of University System of Georgia, 304 U.S. 439, 445-449 (1938).

[631] 47 Stat. 70 (1932).

[632] Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938); New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552. 562-563 (1838); Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products Co., 311 U.S. 91, 100-103 (1940).

[633] 330 U.S. 258 (1947). Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515 (1937), in some ways constitutes an exception to section 9 of the statute by sustaining a mandatory injunction issued against an employer on the petition of employees on the ground that the prohibition of section 9 does not include mandatory injunctions, but "blanket injunctions which are usually prohibitory in form." For other acts of Congress limiting the power of the federal courts to issue injunctions see infra, pp. 523-525.

[634] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).

[635] 18 How. 272 (1856).

[636] 285 U.S. 22 (1932).

[637] Ibid 56-57. Cf., however, Shields v. Utah, Idaho R. Co., 305 U.S. 185 (1938).

[638] Mayor of Nashville v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 (1868); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 233, 234 (1922). See also Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cr. 303, 304 (1809) where Chief Justice Marshall disposed of the effort of British subjects to docket a case in a circuit court, saying, "turn to the article of the Constitution of the United States, for the statute cannot extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Constitution."

[639] Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792).

[640] United States v. Ferriera, 13 How. 40 (1852); Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697 (1864); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911).

[641] In addition to the cases cited in note 3[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to footnote 640 above.], see Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113-114 (1948).

[642] In addition to the cases cited in notes 2, 3, and 4[Transcriber's Note: Reference is to footnotes 639, 640, and 641 above.] see Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464, 469 (1930); Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (1927); Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923). See also the dissenting opinion of Justice Rutledge in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 468 (1944).

[643] Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568 (1926), where the Court held that the United States is always a possible adverse party to a naturalization petition.

[644] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), where the Court sustained an act of Congress requiring the registration of Chinese and creating agencies for the expulsion of aliens unlawfully within the country and for the issuance of certificates to those entitled to remain. The act provided for special proceedings in such cases and prescribed the evidence the courts were to receive and the weight to be attached to it. The procedure was held to contain all the elements of a case—"a complainant, a defendant, and a judge—actor, reus, et judex." pp. 728-729.

[645] La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899). Here the Court sustained an act of Congress which directed the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of the United States against the appellants to determine whether an award made by an international claims commission was obtained by fraud. The Court of Claims was vested with full jurisdiction with appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case, decide it, to issue all proper decrees therein, and to enforce them by injunction. The Court regarded the money received by the United States from Mexico as property of the United States. This together with the interest of Congress in national honor in dealing with Mexico was sufficient to enable it to authorize a suit for the decision of a question "peculiarly judicial in nature." pp. 458-459.

[646] Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917).

[647] Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583 (1858).

[648] 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).

[649] 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).

[650] 21 How. 506 (1859).

[651] For a full account of this episode see Warren, Supreme Court in United States History, II, 193-194. See also Baldwin, The American Judiciary, 163.

[652] 6 Pet. 515, 596 (1832). See also Warren, Supreme Court in United States History, II, 213; and Baldwin, op. cit., 164. It was Worcester v. Georgia which allegedly provoked the probably apocryphal comment attributed to President Jackson, "'Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.'" 2 Warren, Ibid. 219.

[653] Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S. 485 (1900).

[654] Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884).

[655] Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218 (1929); Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U.S. 36 (1928); Wabash R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U.S. 38 (1908); Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); Central National Bank v. Stevens, 169 U.S. 432 (1898); Shields v. Coleman, 157 U.S. 168 (1895); Moran v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 (1894); Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U.S. 276 (1884); Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884); Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872); Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 (1866); Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861); Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263 (1856); Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 583 (1858); Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612 (1849). For later cases see Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118 (1941). Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456 (1939); Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U.S. 491 (1942); Mandeville v. Canterbury, 318 U.S. 47 (1943); Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490 (1946); Propper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472 (1949).

[656] McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cr. 279 (1812); Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. 301 (1843); United States ex rel. Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 (1868); Moran v. Sturges, 154 U.S. 256 (1894); Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake St. Elev. R. Co., 177 U.S. 51 (1900)

[657] 6 Wall. 166 (1868).

[658] Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson, 305 U.S. 456 (1939). This case rests on the principle of comity that where there are two suits in rem or quasi in rem, as they were held to be here, so that the Court has possession of property which is the subject of litigation or must have control of it in order to proceed with the cause and grant the relief sought, the jurisdiction of one court must yield to that of the other. The principle, applicable to both federal and State courts, that the Court first assuming jurisdiction over property may maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other, was held not to be confined to cases where the property has actually been seized under judicial process, but applies as well to suits brought for marshalling assets, administering trusts, or liquidating estates and to suits of a similar nature, where to give effect to its jurisdiction the Court must control the property.

[659] 1 Stat. 335 (1793); 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2283. In the judicial code an exception is made to proceedings in bankruptcy.

[660] Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cr. 179 (1807); Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263 (1856); see especially Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 612 (1849) where the Court held that the prohibition of the act of 1793 extended to injunction suits brought against the parties to a State court proceeding as well as to the State court itself.

[661] Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861); Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904); Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 188 (1905); Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214 (1918).

[662] Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Lake St. Elev. R. Co., 177 U.S. 51 (1900); Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 188 (1905); Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922). For a discussion of this rule see Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co., 314 U.S. 118, 134-136 (1941).

[663] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is the leading case.

[664] Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U.S. 86 (1889); Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891); Simon v. Southern R. Co., 236 U.S. 115 (1915).

[665] French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 231 (1875); Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494 (1881); Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239 (1905).

[666] The earlier cases are Root v. Woolworth, 150 U.S. 401 (1893); Prout v. Starr, 188 U.S. 537 (1903); Juilian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93 (1904).

[667] 314 U.S. 118 (1941).

[668] Ibid. 133-141. Justice Reed, in a dissent in which Chief Justice Stone and Justice Roberts concurred, also reviewed the authorities.

[669] Southern Ry. Co. v. Painter, 314 U.S. 155 (1941).

[670] 9 Wheat. 738 (1824).

[671] 209 U.S. 123 (1908). See also Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898); Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362 (1894).

[672] Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888).

[673] Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 163 (1908).

[674] Ibid. 174. The Young case evoked sharp criticism in Congress and led to the enactment of Sec. 266 of the Judicial Code, prohibiting the issuance of injunctions to restrain enforcement of State laws by a single federal judge, providing for a three-judge court in such cases, limiting the effect of temporary injunctions, and expediting appeals in such cases to the Supreme Court. Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539; 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1253, 2281, 2284. A supplementary act in 1913 (37 Stat. 1013) amended Sec. 266 of the Judicial Code providing for the stay of federal proceedings to enjoin State legislation if a suit has been brought in a State court to enforce the legislation until the State court has determined the issues. Section 266 was amended again in 1925 when the provisions concerning interlocutory injunctions were extended to include permanent injunctions. Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 938.

[675] Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908); Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.S. 159 (1929); Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission, 281 U.S. 470 (1930); Beal v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 312 U.S. 45 (1941).

[676] Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 249 (1941), citing and quoting Ex parte Collins, 277 U.S. 565, 577 (1928).

[677] 312 U.S. 246, 251, citing Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 U.S. 317 (1926); Smith v. Wilson, 273 U.S. 388 (1927); Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Packing Co., 292 U.S. 386 (1934); Ex parte Williams, 277 U.S. 267 (1928); Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U.S. 101 (1928); Rorick v. Commissioners, 307 U.S. 208 (1939); Ex parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 (1940).

[678] Warren, Federal and State Court Interference, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 345, 354 (1930).

[679] 21 How. 506 (1859).

[680] Ibid. 514-516, 523-524, 526.

[681] United States v. Tarble (Tarble's Case), 13 Wall. 397, 407-408 (1872).

[682] 1 Stat. 81, Sec. 14.

[683] 4 Stat. 634, Sec. 7 (1833).

[684] 5 Stat. 539 (1942).

[685] 14 Stat. 385 (1867).

[686] Rev. Stat., Sec. 753; 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2242.

[687] 100 U.S. 257 (1880).

[688] In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).

[689] In re Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1890).

[690] Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 (1900).

[691] Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899).

[692] 209 U.S. 205 (1908).

[693] 117 U.S. 241 (1886).

[694] Ibid. 251.

[695] Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231 (1895).

[696] Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915); Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898).

[697] Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 36, 44 (1926). In addition to the cases cited above see Ex parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 (1886); Duncan v. McCall, 139 U.S. 449 (1891); New York v. Eno, 155. U.S. 89 (1894); Baker v. Grice, 169 U.S. 284 (1898); Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96 (1906); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944). Compare, however, Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948), where it was held that failure of the petitioner to appeal to the Supreme Court from a conviction sustained by the Florida Supreme Court did not bar relief by habeas corpus because of denial of counsel. In Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944), the rule pertaining to the exhaustion of remedies was applied so as to include a certiorari petition in the Supreme Court. In adopting a new United States Code in 1948 (62 Stat. 967) Congress added a new section to existing habeas corpus provisions which stipulated that no application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court shall be granted until the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the States and that an applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted State remedies if he has the right under State law to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented, 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2254. This section codified Ex parte Hawk.

[698] 334 U.S. 672 (1948).

[699] 258 U.S. 254 (1922).

[700] Ibid. 259.

[701] Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 27-28 (1820).

[702] Carriage Tax Act, 1 Stat. 373 (1794); License Tax on Wine and Spirits Act, 1 Stat. 376 (1794).

[703] 1 Stat. 302 (1793).

[704] 1 Stat. 414 (1795).

[705] 1 Stat. 577.

[706] 1 Stat. 727 (1799).

[707] 2 Stat. 453 (1808); 2 Stat. 473 (1808); 2 Stat. 499 (1808); 2 Stat. 506 (1809); 2 Stat. 528 (1809); 2 Stat. 550 (1809); 2 Stat. 605 (1810); 2 Stat. 707 (1812); 3 Stat. 88 (1813).

[708] 3 Stat. 244. For the trial of federal offenses in State courts see Charles Warren, Federal Criminal Laws and State Courts, 38 Harv. L. Rev. 545 (1925).

[709] Charles Warren, Federal Criminal Laws and State Courts, 38 Harv. L. Rev. 545, 577-581 (1925).

[710] Justice Story dissenting in Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 69 (1820); Justice McLean dissenting in United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238, 259 (1835).

[711] 16 Pet. 539, 615 (1842).

[712] Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897); Dallemagne v. Moisan, 197 U.S. 169 (1905). See also Teal v. Felton, 12 How. 284 (1852); Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876). This last case proceeds on the express assumption that the State and National Governments are part of a single nation and implicity repudiates the idea of separate sovereignties, as set out in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 (1842).

[713] Mitchell Wendell, Relations between the Federal and State Courts (New York, 1949), 278.

[714] 35 Stat. 65 (1908).

[715] Hoxie v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 352 (1909).

[716] 223 U.S. 1, 59 (1912).

[717] Brown v. Western Ry. Co. of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294 (1949). See Justice Frankfurter's dissent in this case for a summary of rulings to the contrary.

[718] 330 U.S. 386 (1947).

[719] 56 Stat. 23, 33-34, 205 (c).

[720] 330 U.S. 386, 389.

[721] Ibid. 390. Justice Black refers to Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 615 (1842), and other cases as broadly questioning the power and duty of State courts to enforce federal criminal law. The cases primarily relied upon in the opinion are Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (Second Employers' Liability Cases), 223 U.S. 1 (1912).

[722] Cf. Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535 (1877), (which upheld a similar Wisconsin statute), and Security Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 202 U.S. 246 (1906); with Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 (1874); Barron v. Burnside, 121 U.S. 186 (1887); Southern P. Co. v. Denton, 146 U.S. 202 (1892); Gerling v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 151 U.S. 673, 684 (1894); Barrow S.S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 111 (1898); Herndon v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 218 U.S. 135 (1910); Harrison v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318 (1914); Donald v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & I. Co., 241 U.S. 329 (1916).

[723] 257 U.S. 529, 532 (1922).

[724] 25 Edward III, Stat. 5, Ch. 2. See also Story's Commentaries On The Constitution Of The United States, Vol. 2, 529-540, (5th ed.).

[725] 4 Cr. 75 (1807).

[726] Ibid. 75, 126.

[727] Ibid. 126.

[728] Ibid. 127.

[729] United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. 470, Appx. (1807).

[730] There have been a number of lower court cases in some of which convictions were obtained. As a result of the Whiskey Rebellion convictions of treason were obtained on the basis of the ruling that forcible resistance to the enforcement of the revenue laws was a constructive levying of war. United States v. Vigol, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,621 (1795); United States v. Mitchell, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,788 (1795). After conviction, the defendants were pardoned. See also for the same ruling in a different situation the Case of Fries, 9 Fed. Cas. Nos. 5,126 (1799); 5,127 (1800). The defendant was again pardoned after conviction. About a half century later participation in forcible resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law was held not to be a constructive levying of war. United States v. Hanway, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,299 (1851). Although the United States Government regarded the activities of the Confederate States as a levying of war, the President by Amnesty Proclamation of December 25, 1868, pardoned all those who had participated on the southern side in the Civil War. In applying the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863 (12 Stat. 820) in a civil proceeding, the Court declared that the foundation of the Confederacy was treason against the United States. Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 459 (1875). See also Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342 (1871); Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 (1869); Young v. United States, 97 U.S. 39 (1878). These four cases bring in the concept of adhering to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort, but these are not criminal cases and deal with attempts to recover property under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act by persons who claimed that they had given no aid or comfort to the enemy. These cases are not, therefore, an interpretation of the Constitution.

[731] 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

[732] 89 Law. Ed. 1443-1444 (Argument of Counsel).

[733] 325 U.S. 35.

[734] Ibid. 34-35. Earlier Justice Jackson had declared that this phase of treason consists of two elements: "adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort." A citizen, it was said, may take actions "which do aid and comfort the enemy—* * *—but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason." Ibid. 29. Justice Jackson states erroneously that the requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act was an original invention of the Convention of 1787. Actually it comes from the British Treason Trials Act of 1696 (7 and 8 Wm. III, C. 3).

[735] 330 U.S. 631 (1947).

[736] Ibid. 635-636.

[737] 330 U.S. 631, 645-646. Justice Douglas cites no cases for these propositions. Justice Murphy in a solitary dissent stated: "But the act of providing shelter was of the type that might naturally arise out of petitioner's relationship to his son, as the Court recognizes. By its very nature, therefore, it is a non-treasonous act. That is true even when the act is viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances. All that can be said is that the problem of whether it was motivated by treasonous or non-treasonous factors is left in doubt. It is therefore not an overt act of treason, regardless of how unlawful it might otherwise be." Ibid. 649. The following summary, taken from the Appendix to the Government's brief in Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), and incorporated as note 38 in the Court's opinion (pp. 25-26), contains all the cases in which, prior to Kawakita v. United States, which is dealt with immediately below, construction of the treason clause has been involved except grand jury charges and cases to which interpretation of the clause was incidental: Whiskey Rebellion cases: United States v. Vigol, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,621 (1795), United States v. Mitchell, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,788 (1795) (constructive levying of war, based on forcible resistance to execution of a statute; defendants convicted and later pardoned). House tax case: Fries's Case, 9 Fed. Cas. Nos. 5,126, 5,127 (1799, 1800) (constructive levying of war, based on forcible resistance to execution of a statute; defendant convicted and later pardoned). The Burr Conspiracy: Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75 (1807); United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. Nos. 14,692a (1806); 14,693 (1807) (conspiracy to levy war held not an overt act of levying war). United States v. Lee, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,584 (1814) (sale of provisions a sufficient overt act; acquittal). United States v. Hodges, 26 Fed. Cas No. 15,374 (1815) (obtaining release of prisoners to the enemy is adhering to the enemy, the act showing the intent; acquittal). United States v. Hoxie, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,407 (1808) (attack of smugglers on troops enforcing embargo is riot and not levying of war). United States v. Pryor, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16,096 (1814) (proceeding under flag of truce with enemy detachment to help buy provisions is too remote an act to establish adhering to the enemy). United States v. Hanway, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,299 (1851) (forcible resistance to execution of Fugitive Slave Law no levying of war). United States v. Greiner, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,262 (1861) (participation as members of state militia company in seizure of a federal fort is a levying of war). United States v. Greathouse, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,254 (1863) (fitting out and sailing a privateer is a levying of war; defendants convicted, later pardoned). Cases of confiscation of property or refusal to enforce obligations given in connection with sale of provisions to the Confederacy: Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342 (1871); Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147 (1873); Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 459, 371[Transcriber's Note: "371" is incorrect—case occupies 20 Wall. 459-474 (1874)] (1874); United States v. Athens Armory, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,473 (1868) (mixed motive, involving commercial profit, does not bar finding of giving aid and comfort to the enemy). United States v. Cathcart and United States v. Parmenter, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14,756 (1864). Chenoweth's Case (unreported: see Ex parte Vallandigham, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,816, at 888 (1863)) (indictment bad for alleging aiding and abetting rebels, instead of directly charging levying of war). Case of Jefferson Davis, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3621a (1867-71) (argument that rebels whose government achieved status of a recognized belligerent could not be held for treason; Davis was not tried on the indictment); see 2 Warren, Supreme Court in United States History (1934 ed.) 485-487; Watson, Trial of Jefferson Davis (1915) 25 Yale L.J. 669. Philippine insurrections: United States v. Magtibay, 2 Phil. 703 (1903), United States v. De Los Reyes, 3 Phil. 349 (1904) (mere possession of rebel commissions insufficient overt acts; strict enforcement of two-witness requirement; convictions reversed); United States v. Lagnason, 3 Phil. 472 (1904) (armed effort to overthrow the government is levying war). United States v. Fricke, 259 F. 673 (1919) (acts "indifferent" on their face held sufficient overt acts). United States v. Robinson, 259 F. 685 (1919) (dictum, acts harmless on their face are insufficient overt acts). United States v. Werner, 247 F. 708 (1918), affirmed in 251 U.S. 466 (1920) (act indifferent on its face may be sufficient overt act). United States v. Haupt, 136 F. (2d) 661 (1943) (reversal of conviction on strict application of two-witness requirement and other grounds; inferentially approves acts harmless on their face as overt acts). Stephan v. United States, 133 F. (2d) 87 (1943) (acts harmless on their face may be sufficient overt acts; conviction affirmed but sentence commuted). United States v. Cramer, 137 F. (2d) 888 (1943).

[738] 343 U.S. 717.

[739] Ibid. 732. For citations on the subject of dual nationality, see ibid. 723 note 2. Three dissenters asserted that Kawakita's conduct in Japan clearly showed he was consistently demonstrating his allegiance to Japan. "As a matter of law, he expatriated himself as well as that can be done." Ibid. 746.

[740] Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75 (1807).

[741] United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. 470 (1807).

[742] Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

[743] Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947).

[744] Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75, 126, 127 (1807).

[745] 12 Stat. 589. This act incidentally did not designate rebellion as treason.

[746] Miller v. United States, 11 Wall. 268, 305 (1871).

[747] Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202, 213 (1876).

[748] Lord de la Warre's Case, 11 Coke, 1 a. A number of cases dealt with the effect of a full pardon by the President of owners of property confiscated under this act. They held that a full pardon relieved the owner of forfeiture as far as the Government was concerned, but did not divide the interest acquired by third persons from the Government during the lifetime of the offender. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Bosworth, 133 U.S. 92, 101 (1890); Knote v. United States, 95 U.S. 149 (1877); Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U.S. 202, 213 (1876); Armstrong's Foundry v. United States, 6 Wall. 766, 769 (1868). There is no direct ruling on the question of whether only citizens can commit treason. In Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 147, 154-155 (1873), the Court declared that aliens while domiciled in this country owe a temporary allegiance to it and may be punished for treason equally with a native-born citizen in the absence of a treaty stipulation to the contrary. This case involved the attempt of certain British subjects to recover claims for property seized under the Captured and Abandoned Property Act, 12 Stat. 820 (1863) which provided for the recovery of property or its value in suits in the Court of Claims by persons who had not rendered aid and comfort to the enemy. Earlier in United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 97 (1820), which involved a conviction for manslaughter under an act punishing manslaughter and treason on the high seas, Chief Justice Marshall going beyond the necessities of the case stated that treason "is a breach of allegiance, and can be committed by him only who owes allegiance either perpetual or temporary."



ARTICLE IV

STATES' RELATIONS

Section 1. Full faith and credit Page Sources and effect of this provision 651 Private international law 651 Importance of the constitutional provision 652 Acts of 1790 and 1804 652 Force and effect of same 652 Judgments: Primary concern of the provision 653 Two principal classes of judgments 653 Effect to be given in forum State 653 Jurisdictional prerequisite 657 Judgments in personam 658 Jurisdictional question 659 Service on foreign corporations 660 Service on out-of-State owners of motor vehicles 660 Judgments in rem 661 Thompson v. Whitman 661 Divorce decrees 662 Jurisdictional prerequisite: Domicile 662 Haddock v. Haddock 662 Emergence of the domicile question 663 Williams I and II 664 Cases involving claims for alimony or property arising in forum State 666 Recent cases 668 State of the law today: quaere 670 Decrees awarding alimony, custody of children 670 Collateral attack by child 671 Decrees of other types 672 Probate decrees 672 Adoption decrees 673 Garnishment decrees 673 Fraud as a defense to suits on foreign judgments 674 Penal judgments: types entitled to recognition 674 Recognition of rights based upon Constitutions, statutes, common law 675 The early rule 675 Development of the modern rule 675 Transitory actions: Death statutes 676 Actions upon contract: When governed by law of place of making 677 Stockholder-corporation relationship 677 Fraternal benefit society—member relationship 678 Insurance company, building and loan association—contractual relationships 679 Workmen's compensation statutes 681 Development of section to date and possibilities 682 Evaluation of results 682 Scope of powers of Congress under section 683 Full faith and credit in the federal courts 684 Judgments of foreign States 685 Section 2. Interstate comity 686 Clause 1. The comity clause 686 Sources 686 Theories as to its purpose 686 How implemented 688 "Citizens of each State" 688 Corporations 688 "All privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States" 689 Discrimination in private rights 691 Access to courts 691 Taxation 692 Clause 2. Fugitives from justice 693 Duty to surrender 693 "Fugitive from justice" 694 Procedure of removal 695 Trial of fugitive after removal 695 Clause 3. Fugitives from labor 696 Section 3. New States and government of territory, etc. 697 Clause 1. Admission of States 697 Doctrine of equality of the States 697 Earlier scope of the doctrine 698 Citizenship of inhabitants 699 Judicial proceedings 699 Property rights; United States v. Texas 700 Rights conveyed to private persons before admission of State 700 Clause 2. Property and territory; regulatory powers of Congress 701 Property of the United States 701 Methods of disposing 701 Public lands 701 Power of the States 702 Power of Congress over territories 703 Section 4. Obligations of United States to the States 704 Republican form of government 704 Protection against domestic violence 704 Decline in importance of this guaranty 704

STATE'S RELATIONS

Article IV

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sources and Effect of This Provision

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The historical background of the above section is furnished by that branch of private law which is variously termed "Private International Law," "Conflict of Laws," "Comity." This comprises a body of rules, based largely on the writings of jurists and judicial decisions, in accordance with which the courts of one country or "jurisdiction" will ordinarily, in the absence of a local policy to the contrary, extend recognition and enforcement to rights claimed by individuals by virtue of the laws or judicial decisions of another country or "jurisdiction." Most frequently applied examples of these rules include the following: the rule that a marriage which is good in the country where performed (lex loci) is good elsewhere; likewise the rule that contracts are to be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the country where entered into (lex loci contractus) unless the parties clearly intended otherwise; also the rule that immovables may be disposed of only in accordance with the law of the country where situated (lex rei sitae);[1] also the converse rule that chattels adhere to the person of their owner and hence are disposable by him, even when located elsewhere, in accordance with the law of his domicile (lex domicilii); also the rule that regardless of where the cause arose, the courts of any country where personal service can be got upon the defendant will take jurisdiction of certain types of personal actions, hence termed "transitory," and accord such remedy as the lex fori affords. Still other rules, of first importance in the present connection, determine the recognition which the judgments of the courts of one country shall receive from those of another country.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

So even had the States of the Union remained in a mutual relationship of entire independence, still private claims originating in one would often have been assured recognition and enforcement in the others. The framers of the Constitution felt, however, that the rules of private international law should not be left as among the States altogether on a basis of comity, and hence subject always to the overruling local policy of the lex fori, but ought to be in some measure at least placed on the higher plane of constitutional obligation. In fulfillment of this intent the section now under consideration was inserted, and Congress was empowered to enact supplementary and enforcing legislation.

THE ACTS OF 1790 AND 1804

Congressional legislation under the full faith and credit clause, so far as it is pertinent to adjudication thereunder, is today embraced in section 687 of Title 28 of the United States Code, which consolidates the acts of May 26, 1790 and of March 27, 1804.[2] "The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Territory, or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."

FORCE AND EFFECT OF SAME

Several points clearly emerge: (1) the word "effect" is construed as referring to the effect of the records when authenticated, not to the effect of the authentication; (2) the faith and credit which is required by the rules of private international law is superseded as to "the records and judicial proceedings" of each State by a rule of complete obligation; as to these the local policy of the forum State can validly have no application. On the other hand, (3) while the act of 1790 lays down a rule for the authentication of the statutes of the several States, it says nothing regarding their extraterritorial operation; and (4) it is similarly silent regarding the common law of the several States. These silences, however, have been repealed, in part, by judicial decision. (See pp. 675-682.)

Judgments: The Primary Concern of the Provision

TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES OF JUDGMENTS

Article IV, section 1, has had its principal operation in relation to judgments. The cases fall into two groups: First, those in which the judgment involved was offered as a basis of proceedings for its own enforcement outside the State where rendered, as for example, when an action for debt is brought in the courts of State B on a judgment for money damages rendered in State A; secondly, those in which the judgment involved was offered, in conformance with the principle of res judicata, in defense in a new or "collateral" proceeding growing out of the same facts as the original suit, as for example, when a decree of divorce granted in State A is offered as barring a suit for divorce by the other party to the marriage in the courts of State B.

EFFECT TO BE GIVEN IN FORUM STATE

The English courts and the different State courts in the United States, while recognizing "foreign judgments in personam" which were reducible to money terms as affording a basis for actions in debt, originally accorded them generally only the status of prima facie evidence in support thereof, so that the merits of the original controversy could always be opened. When offered in defense, on the other hand, "foreign judgments in personam" were ordinarily treated as conclusive, as between parties, of the issues they purported to determine, provided they had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and were not tainted with fraud. And judgments "in rem" rendered under the same conditions were regarded as conclusive upon everybody on the theory that, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall, "it is a proceeding in rem, to which all the world are parties."[3]

The pioneer case was Mills v. Duryee,[4] decided in 1813. In an action brought in the circuit court of the District of Columbia—the equivalent of a State court for this purpose—on a judgment from a New York court, the defendant endeavored to reopen the whole question of the merits of the original case by a plea of "nil debet." It was answered in the words of the act of 1790 itself, that such records and proceedings were entitled in each State to the same faith and credit as in the State of origin; and that inasmuch as they were records of a court in the State of origin, and so conclusive of the merits of the case there, they were equally so in the forum State. The Court adopted the latter view, saying that it had not been the intention of the Constitution merely to reenact the common law—that is, the principles of private international law—as to the reception of foreign judgments, but to amplify and fortify these.[5] And in Hampton v. McConnell[6] some years later, Chief Justice Marshall went even further, using language which seems to show that he regarded the judgment of a State court as constitutionally entitled to be accorded in the courts of sister States not simply the faith and credit of conclusive evidence, but the validity of a final judgment.

When, however, the next important case arose, the Court has come under new influences. This was McElmoyle v. Cohen,[7] decided in 1839, in which the issue was whether a statute of limitations of the State of Georgia, which applied only to judgments obtained in courts other than those of Georgia, could constitutionally bar an action in Georgia on a judgment rendered by a court of record of South Carolina. Declining to follow Marshall's lead in Hampton v. McConnell, the Court held that the Constitution was not intended "materially to interfere with the essential attributes of the lex fori"; that the act of Congress only established a rule of evidence, of conclusive evidence to be sure, but still of evidence only; and that it was necessary, in order to carry into effect in a State the judgment of a court of a sister State, to institute a fresh action in the court of the former, in strict compliance with its laws; and that consequently, when remedies were sought in support of the rights accruing in another jurisdiction, they were governed by the lex fori. In accord with this holding it has been further held that foreign judgments enjoy, not the right of priority or privilege or lien which they have in the State where they are pronounced, but only that which the lex fori gives them by its own laws, in their character of foreign judgments.[8] A judgment of a State court, in a cause within its jurisdiction, and against a defendant lawfully summoned, or against lawfully attached property of an absent defendant, is entitled to as much force and effect against the person summoned or the property attached, when the question is presented for decision in a court in another State, as it has in the State in which it was rendered.[9]

A judgment enforceable in the State where rendered must be given effect in the other State, although the modes of procedure to enforce its collection may not be the same in both States.[10] If the court has acquired jurisdiction, the judgment is entitled to full faith and credit though the court may not be able to enforce it by execution in the State in which it was rendered, as where the defendant left the State after service upon him and took all his property with him. While the want of power to enforce a judgment or decree may afford a reason against entertaining jurisdiction, it has nothing to do with the validity of a judgment or decree when made.[11] In the words of the Court in a recent case: "A cause of action on a judgment is different from that upon which the judgment was entered. In a suit upon a money judgment for a civil cause of action, the validity of the claim upon which it was founded is not open to inquiry, whatever its genesis. Regardless of the nature of the right which gave rise to it, the judgment is an obligation to pay money in the nature of a debt upon a specialty. Recovery upon it can be resisted only on the grounds that the court which rendered it was without jurisdiction, * * * or that it has ceased to be obligatory because of payment or other discharge * * * or that it is a cause of action for which the State of the forum has not provided a court * * *"[12]

On the other hand, the clause is not violated when a judgment is disregarded because it is not conclusive of the issues before a court of the forum. Conversely, no greater effect can be given than is given in the State where rendered. Thus an interlocutory judgment may not be given the effect of a final judgment.[13] Likewise when a federal court does not attempt to foreclose the State court from hearing all matters of personal defense which landowners might plead, a State court may refuse to accept the former's judgment as determinative of the landowners' liabilities.[14] Similarly, though a confession of judgment upon a note, with a warrant of attorney annexed, in favor of the holder, is in conformity with a State law and usage as declared by the highest court of the State in which the judgment is rendered, the judgment may be collaterally impeached upon the ground that the party in whose behalf it was rendered was not in fact the holder.[15] But a consent decree, which under the law of the State has the same force and effect as a decree in invitum, must be given the same effect in the courts of another State.[16]

One result produced by not following Hampton v. McConnell is that even nowadays the Court is sometimes confronted with the contention that a State need not provide a forum for some particular type of judgment from a sister State, a claim which it has by no means met with clear-cut principles. Thus in one case it held that a New York statute forbidding foreign corporations doing a domestic business to sue on causes originating outside the State was constitutionally applicable to prevent such a corporation from suing on a judgment obtained in a sister State.[17] But in a later case it ruled that a Mississippi statute forbidding contracts in cotton futures could not validly close the courts of the State to an action on a judgment obtained in a sister State on such a contract, although the contract in question had been entered into in the forum State and between its citizens.[18] Following the later rather than the earlier precedent, subsequent cases[19] have held: (1) that a State may adopt such system of courts and form of remedy as it sees fit, but cannot, under the guise of merely affecting the remedy, deny enforcement of claims otherwise within the protection of the full faith and credit clause when its courts have general jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;[20] (2) that, accordingly, a forum State, which has a shorter period of limitations than the State in which a judgment was granted and later reviewed, erred in concluding that, whatever the effect of the revivor under the law of the State of origin, it could refuse enforcement of the revived judgment;[21] (3) that the courts of one State have no jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of judgments at law obtained in another State, when the same reasons assigned for granting the restraining order were passed upon on a motion for new trial in the action at law and the motion denied;[22] (4) that the constitutional mandate requires credit to be given to a money judgment rendered in a civil cause of action in another State, even though the forum State would have been under no duty to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded, inasmuch as a State cannot, by the adoption of a particular rule of liability or of procedure, exclude from its courts a suit on a judgment;[23] and (5) that similarly, tort claimants in State A, who obtain a judgment against a foreign insurance company, notwithstanding that, prior to judgment, domiciliary State B appointed a liquidator for the company, vested company assets in him, and ordered suits against the company stayed, are entitled to have such judgment recognized in State B for purposes of determining the amount of their claim, although not for determination of what priority, if any, their claim should have.[24] Moreover, there is no apparent reason why Congress, acting on the implications of Marshall's words in Hampton v. McConnell, should not clothe extrastate judgments of any particular type with the full status of domestic judgments of the same type in the several States.[25]

The Jurisdictional Prerequisite

The second great class of cases to arise under the full faith and credit clause comprises those raising the question whether a judgment for which extrastate operation was being sought, either as a basis of an action or as a defense in one, has been rendered with jurisdiction. Records and proceedings of courts wanting jurisdiction are not entitled to credit.[26] The jurisdictional question arises both in connection with judgments in personam against nonresident defendants upon whom it is alleged personal service was not obtained in the State of origin of the judgment, and in relation to judgments in rem against property or a status alleged not to have been within the jurisdiction of the Court which handed down the original decree.[27]

JUDGMENTS IN PERSONAM

The pioneer case is that of D'Arcy v. Ketchum,[28] decided in 1850. The question presented was whether a judgment rendered by a New York court under a statute which provided that, when joint debtors were sued and one of them was brought into court on a process, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would entitle him to execute against all, and so must be accorded full faith and credit in Louisiana when offered as the basis of an action in debt against a resident of that State who had not been served by process in the New York action. Pressed with the argument that by "the immutable principles of justice" no man's rights should be impaired without his being given an opportunity to defend them, the Court ruled that, interpreted in the light of the principles of "international law and comity" as they existed in 1790, the act of Congress of that year did not reach the case.[29] The truth is that the decision virtually amended the act, for had the Louisiana defendant ventured to New York, he could, as the Constitution of the United States then stood, have been subjected to the judgment of the same extent as the New York defendant who had been personally served. Subsequently, this disparity between the operation of a personal judgment in the home State and a sister State has been eliminated, thanks to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In divorce cases, however, it still persists in some measure. (See pp. 662-670.)

In Pennoyer v. Neff,[30] decided in 1878, and so under the amendment, the Court held that a judgment given in a case in which the State court had endeavored to acquire jurisdiction of a nonresident defendant by an attachment upon property of his within the State and constructive notice to him, had not been rendered with jurisdiction and hence could not afford the basis of an action in the court of another State against such defendant, although it bound him so far as the property attached was concerned, on account of the inherent right of a State to assist its own citizens in obtaining satisfaction of their just claims. Nor would such a judgment, the Court further indicated, be due process of law to any greater extent in the State where rendered. In the words of a later case, "an ordinary personal judgment for money, invalid for want of service amounting to due process of law, is as ineffective in the State as outside of it."[31]

THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION

In short, when the subject matter of a suit is merely the determination of the defendant's liability, it is necessary that it should appear from the record that the defendant had been brought within the jurisdiction of the court by personal service of process, or his voluntary appearance, or that he had in some manner authorized the proceeding.[32] The claim that a judgment was "not responsive to the pleadings" raises the jurisdictional question;[33] but the fact that a nonresident defendant was only temporarily in the State when he was served in the original action does not vitiate the judgment rendered as the basis of an action in his home State.[34] Also, a judgment rendered in the State of his domicile against a defendant who, pursuant to the statute thereof providing for the service of process on absent defendants, was personally served in another State is entitled to full faith and credit.[35] Also, when the matter of fact or law on which jurisdiction depends was not litigated in the original suit, it is a matter to be adjudicated in the suit founded upon the judgment.[36]

Inasmuch as the principle of res judicata applies only to proceedings between the same parties and privies, the plea by defendant in an action based on a judgment that he was no party or privy to the original action raises the question of jurisdiction; and while a judgment against a corporation in one State may validly bind a stockholder in another State to the extent of the par value of his holdings,[37] an administrator acting under a grant of administration in one State stands in no sort of relation of priority to an administrator of the same estate in another State.[38] But where a judgment of dismissal was entered in a federal court in an action against one of two joint tortfeasors, in a State in which such a judgment would constitute an estoppel in another action in the same State against the other tort-feasor, such judgment is not entitled to full faith and credit in an action brought against the other tortfeasor in another State.[39]

SERVICE ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

In 1856 the Court decided Lafayette Insurance Co. v. French et al.,[40] a pioneer case in its general class. Here it was held that "where a corporation chartered by the State of Indiana was allowed by a law of Ohio to transact business in the latter State upon the condition that service of process upon the agent of the corporation should be considered as service upon the corporation itself, a judgment obtained against the corporation by means of such process" ought to receive in Indiana the same faith and credit as it was entitled to in Ohio.[41] Later cases establish under both the Fourteenth Amendment and article IV, section 1, that the cause of action must have arisen within the State obtaining service in this way,[42] that service on an officer of a corporation, not its resident agent and not present in the State in an official capacity, will not confer jurisdiction over the corporation;[43] that the question whether the corporation was actually "doing business" in the State may be raised.[44] On the other hand, the fact that the business was interstate is no objection.[45]

SERVICE ON OUT-OF-STATE OWNERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

By analogy to the above cases, it has been held that a State may require nonresident owners of motor vehicles to designate an official within the State as an agent upon whom process may be served in any legal proceedings growing out of their operation of a motor vehicle within the State;[46] and while these cases arose under the Fourteenth Amendment alone, unquestionably a judgment validly obtained upon this species of service could be enforced upon the owner of a car through the courts of his home State.

JUDGMENTS IN REM

In sustaining the challenge to jurisdiction in cases involving judgments in personam, the Court was in the main making only a somewhat more extended application of recognized principles. In order to sustain the same kind of challenge in cases involving judgments in rem it has had to make law outright. The leading case is Thompson v. Whitman,[47] decided in 1874. Thompson, sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey, acting under a New Jersey statute, had seized a sloop belonging to Whitman, and by a proceeding in rem had obtained its condemnation and forfeiture in a local court. Later, Whitman, a citizen of New York, brought an action for trespass against Thompson in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, and Thompson answered by producing a record of the proceedings before the New Jersey tribunal. Whitman thereupon set up the contention that the New Jersey court had acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as the sloop which was the subject matter of the proceedings had been seized outside the county to which, by the statute under which it had acted, its jurisdiction was confined.

Thompson v. Whitman

As previously explained, the plea of lack of privity cannot be set up in defense in a sister State against a judgment in rem. It is, on the other hand, required of a proceeding in rem that the res be within the court's jurisdiction, and this, it was urged, had not been the case in Thompson v. Whitman. Could, then, the Court consider this challenge with respect to a judgment which was offered not as the basis for an action for enforcement through the courts of a sister State, but merely as a defense in a collateral action? As the law stood in 1873, it apparently could not.[48] All difficulties, nevertheless, to its consideration of the challenge to jurisdiction in the case were brushed aside by the Court. Whenever, it said, the record of a judgment rendered in a State court is offered "in evidence" by either of the parties to an action in another State, it may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to sustain the former court's jurisdiction; "and if it be shown that such facts did not exist, the record will be a nullity, notwithstanding the claim that they did exist."[49]

Divorce Decrees

THE JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE: DOMICILE

This however, was only the beginning of the court's lawmaking in cases in rem. The most important class of such cases is that in which the respondent to a suit for divorce offers in defense an earlier decree from the courts of a sister State. By the almost universally accepted view prior to 1906 a proceeding in divorce was one against the marriage status, i.e., in rem, and hence might be validly brought by either party in any State where he or she was bona fide domiciled;[50] and, conversely, when the plaintiff did not have a bona fide domicile in the State, a court could not render a decree binding in other States even if the nonresident defendant entered a personal appearance.[51] But in 1906 the Court discovered, by a vote of five-to-four, a situation in which a divorce proceeding is one in personam.

Haddock v. Haddock

The case referred to is Haddock v. Haddock,[52] while the earlier rule is illustrated by Atherton v. Atherton,[53] decided five years previously. In the latter it was held, in the former denied, that a divorce granted a husband without personal service upon the wife, who at the time was residing in another State, was entitled to recognition under the full faith and credit clause and the acts of Congress; the difference between the cases consisting solely in the fact that in the Atherton case the husband had driven the wife from their joint home by his conduct, while in the Haddock case he had deserted her. The Court which granted the divorce in Atherton v. Atherton was held to have had jurisdiction of the marriage status, with the result that the proceeding was one in rem and hence required only service by publication upon the respondent. Haddock's suit, on the contrary, was held to be as to the wife in personam, and so to require personal service upon her, or her voluntary appearance, neither of which had been had; although, notwithstanding this, the decree in the latter case was held to be valid as to the State where obtained on account of the State's inherent power to determine the status of its own citizens. The upshot was a situation in which a man and a woman, when both were in Connecticut, were divorced; when both were in New York, were married; and when the one was in Connecticut and the other in New York, the former was divorced and the latter married. In Atherton v. Atherton the Court had earlier acknowledged that "a husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law."

EMERGENCE OF THE DOMICILE QUESTION

The practical difficulties and distresses likely to result from such anomalies were pointed out by critics of the decision at the time. In point of fact, they have been largely avoided, because most of the State courts have continued to give judicial recognition and full faith and credit to one another's divorce proceedings on the basis of the older idea that a divorce proceeding is one in rem, and that if the applicant is bona fide domiciled in the State the court has jurisdiction in this respect. Moreover, until the second of the Williams v. North Carolina cases[54] was decided in 1945, there had not been manifested the slightest disposition to challenge judicially the power of the States to determine what shall constitute domicile for divorce purposes. Shortly prior thereto, in 1938, the Court in Davis v. Davis[55] rejected contentions adverse to the validity of a Virginia decree of which enforcement was sought in the District of Columbia. In this case, a husband, after having obtained in the District a decree of separation subject to payment of alimony, established years later a residence in Virginia, and sued there for a divorce. Personally served in the District, where she continued to reside, the wife filed a plea denying that her husband was a resident of Virginia and averred that he was guilty of a fraud on the court in seeking to establish a residence for purposes of jurisdiction. In ruling that the Virginia decree, granting to the husband an absolute divorce minus any alimony payment, was enforceable in the District, the Court stated that in view of the wife's failure, while in Virginia litigating her husband's status to sue, to answer the husband's charges of wilful desertion, it would be unreasonable to hold that the husband's domicile in Virginia was not sufficient to entitle him to a divorce effective in the District. The finding of the Virginia court on domicile and jurisdiction was declared to bind the wife. Davis v. Davis is distinguishable from the Williams v. North Carolina decisions in that in the former, determination of the jurisdictional prerequisite of domicile was made in a contested proceeding, while in the Williams cases it was not.

Williams I and II

In the Williams I and Williams II cases, the husband of one marriage and the wife of another left North Carolina, obtained six-week divorce decrees in Nevada, married there, and resumed their residence in North Carolina where both previously had been married and domiciled. Prosecuted for bigamy, the defendants relied upon their Nevada decrees; and won the preliminary round of this litigation; that is, Williams I,[56] when a majority of the justices, overruling Haddock v. Haddock, declared that in this case, the Court must assume that the petitioners for divorce had a bona fide domicile in Nevada, and not that their Nevada domicile was a sham. "* * * each State, by virtue of its command over its domiciliaries and its large interest in the institution of marriage, can alter within its own borders the marriage status of the spouse domiciled there, even though the other spouse is absent. There is no constitutional barrier if the form and nature of substituted service meet the requirements of due process." Accordingly, a decree granted by Nevada to one, who, it is assumed, is at the time bona fide domiciled therein, is binding upon the courts of other States, including North Carolina in which the marriage was performed and where the other party to the marriage is still domiciled when the divorce was decreed. In view of its assumptions, which it justified on the basis of an inadequate record, the Court did not here pass upon the question whether North Carolina had the power to refuse full faith and credit to a Nevada decree because it was based on residence rather than domicile; or because, contrary to the findings of the Nevada court, North Carolina found that no bona fide domicile had been acquired in Nevada.[57]

Presaging what ruling the Court would make when it did get around to passing upon the latter question, Justice Jackson, dissenting in Williams I, protested that "this decision repeals the divorce laws of all the States and substitutes the law of Nevada as to all marriages one of the parties to which can afford a short trip there. * * * While a State can no doubt set up its own standards of domicile as to its internal concerns, I do not think it can require us to accept and in the name of the Constitution impose them on other States. * * * The effect of the Court's decision today—that we must give extraterritorial effect to any judgment that a state honors for its own purposes—is to deprive this Court of control over the operation of the full faith and credit and the due process clauses of the Federal Constitution in cases of contested jurisdiction and to vest it in the first State to pass on the facts necessary to jurisdiction."[58]

Notwithstanding that one of the deserted spouses had died since the initial trial and that another had remarried, North Carolina, without calling into question the status of the latter marriage began a new prosecution for bigamy; and when the defendants appealed the conviction resulting therefrom, the Supreme Court, in Williams II,[59] sustained the adjudication of guilt as not denying full faith and credit to the Nevada divorce decree. Reiterating the doctrine that jurisdiction to grant divorce is founded on domicile,[60] a majority of the Court held that a decree of divorce rendered in one State may be collaterally impeached in another by proof that the court which rendered the decree lacked jurisdiction (the parties not having been domiciled therein), even though the record of proceedings in that court purports to show jurisdiction.[61]

CASES INVOLVING CLAIMS FOR ALIMONY OR PROPERTY ARISING IN FORUM STATE

In Esenwein v. Commonwealth,[62] decided on the same day as the second Williams Case, the Supreme Court also sustained a Pennsylvania court in its refusal to recognize an ex parte Nevada decree on the ground that the husband who obtained it never acquired a bona fide domicile in the latter State. In this instance, the husband and wife had separated in Pennsylvania, where the wife was granted a support order; and after two unsuccessful attempts to win a divorce in that State, the husband departed for Nevada. Upon the receipt of a Nevada decree, the husband thereafter established a residence in Ohio, and filed an action in Pennsylvania for total relief from the support order. In a concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justices Black and Rutledge, Justice Douglas stressed the "basic difference between the problem of marital capacity and the problem of support," and stated that it was "not apparent that the spouse who obtained the decree can defeat an action for maintenance or support in another State by showing that he was domiciled in the State which awarded him the divorce decree," unless the other spouse appeared or was personally served. "The State where the deserted wife is domiciled has a deep concern in the welfare of the family deserted by the head of the household. If he is required to support his former wife, he is not made a bigamist and the offspring of his second marriage are not bastardized." Or as succinctly stated by Justice Rutledge, "the jurisdictional foundation for a decree in one State capable of foreclosing an action for maintenance or support in another may be different from that required to alter the marital status with extraterritorial effect."[63]

Three years later, but on this occasion as spokesman for a majority of the Court, Justice Douglas reiterated these views in the case of Estin v. Estin.[64] Even though it acknowledged the validity of an ex parte Nevada decree obtained by a husband, New York was held not to have denied full faith and credit to said decree when, subsequently thereto, it granted the wife a judgment for arrears in alimony founded upon a decree of separation previously awarded to her when both she and her husband were domiciled in New York. The Nevada decree, issued to the husband after he had resided there a year and upon constructive notice to the wife in New York who entered no appearance, was held to be effective only to change the marital status of both parties in all States of the Union but ineffective on the issue of alimony. Divorce, in other words, was viewed as being divisible; and Nevada, in the absence of acquiring jurisdiction over the wife, was held incapable of adjudicating the rights of the wife in the prior New York judgment awarding her alimony. Accordingly, the Nevada decree could not prevent New York from applying its own rule of law which, unlike that of Pennsylvania,[65] does permit a support order to survive a divorce decree.[66] Such a result was justified as accommodating the interests of both New York and Nevada in the broken marriage by restricting each State to matters of her dominant concern, the concern of New York being that of protecting the abandoned wife against impoverishment.

RECENT CASES

Fears registered by the dissenters in the second Williams Case that the stability of all divorces might be undermined thereby and that thereafter the court of each forum State, by its own independent determination of domicile, might refuse recognition of foreign decrees were temporarily set at rest by the holding in Sherrer v. Sherrer,[67] wherein Massachusetts, a state of domiciliary origin, was required to accord full faith and credit to a 90-day Florida decree which had been contested by the husband. The latter, upon receiving notice by mail, retained Florida counsel who entered a general appearance and denied all allegations in the complaint, including the wife's residence. At the hearing the husband, though present in person and by counsel, did not offer evidence in rebuttal of the wife's proof of her Florida residence; and when the Florida court ruled that she was a bona fide resident, the husband did not appeal. Inasmuch as the findings of the requisite jurisdictional facts, unlike those in the Second Williams Case, were made in proceedings in which the defendant appeared and participated, the requirements of full faith and credit were held to bar him from collaterally attacking such findings in a suit instituted by him in his home State of Massachusetts, particularly in the absence of proof that the divorce decree was subject to such collateral attack in a Florida court. Having failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded him by his appearance in the Florida proceeding, the husband was thereafter precluded from re-litigating in another State the issue of his wife's domicile already passed upon by the Florida court.

In Coe v. Coe,[68] embracing a similar set of facts, the Court applied like reasoning to reach a similar result. Massachusetts again was compelled to recognize the validity of a six-week Nevada decree obtained by a husband who had left Massachusetts after a court of that State had refused him a divorce and had granted his wife separate support. In the Nevada proceeding, the wife appeared personally and by counsel filed a cross-complaint for divorce, admitted the husband's residence, and participated personally in the proceedings. After finding that it had jurisdiction of the plaintiff, defendant, and the subject matter involved, the Nevada court granted the wife a divorce, which was valid, final, and not subject to collateral attack under Nevada law. The husband married again, and on his return to Massachusetts, his ex-wife petitioned the Massachusetts court to adjudge him in contempt for failing to make payments for her separate support under the earlier Massachusetts decree. Inasmuch as there was no intimation that under Massachusetts law a decree of separate support would survive a divorce, recognition of the Nevada decree as valid accordingly necessitated a rejection of the ex-wife's contention.

Appearing to revive Williams II, and significant for the social consequences produced by the result decreed therein, is the recent case of Rice v. Rice.[69] To determine the widowhood status of the party litigants in relation to inheritance of property of a husband who had deserted his first wife in Connecticut, had obtained an ex parte divorce in Nevada, and after remarriage, had died without ever returning to Connecticut, the first wife, joining the second wife and the administrator of his estate as defendants, petitioned a Connecticut court for a declaratory judgment. After having placed upon the first wife the burden of proving that the decedent had not acquired a bona fide domicile in Nevada, and after giving proper weight to the claims of power by the Nevada court, the Connecticut court concluded that the evidence sustained the contentions of the first wife; and in so doing, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. The cases of Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948) and Coe v. Coe, 334 U.S. 378 (1948), previously discussed, were declared not to be in point; inasmuch as no personal service was made upon the first wife, nor did she in any way participate in the Nevada proceedings. She was not, therefore, precluded from challenging the finding of the Nevada court that the decedent was, at the time of the divorce, domiciled in that State.[70]