Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. cause, is not entitled to full faith and credit outside the State in which the divorce was granted. Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562. Generally speaking, where a decree is rendered for alimony, and is made payable in future installments, the right to such installments becomes absolute and vested on becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the installments. Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 11. See exception, under different conditions, in same case. See also Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582. Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U. S. 186. Bates v. Bodie, 245 U. S. 520. Judgments by confession.-A judgment by confession entered in one State is entitled to the same faith and credit in a sister State as any other judgment. Davis v. Davis, 164 Fed. 281; judgment reversed in 174 Fed. 786. Where a State court decides that the validity of a clause in a contract between two railway companies was not in controversy or passed on in causes relating to the same contract in which decrees by consent were rendered in the courts of another State, and that therefore it has authority to pass on the validity of such clause, it does not refuse to give due effect to the final judgment of a court of another State. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. 137 U. S. 48. Though a confession of judgment upon a note, with warrant of attorney annexed, in favor of the holder, is in conformity with State law and usage as declared by the highest court of the State in which the judgment is rendered, the judgment when sued on in another State may be collaterally attacked upon the ground that the party in whose behalf it was rendered was not in fact the holder because not the real owner of the note, without doing violence to this clause. National Exch. Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 265. Grover & Baker, etc., Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U. S. 287. Stockholders' liability.—A judgment in an action brought by a receiver of an insolvent corporation to enforce the legal liability of the stockholders is entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of another State. Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U. S. 243. Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U. S. 142. Assessment and payment of succession or inheritance taxes.-Judicial proceedings in one State, under which inheritance taxes have been paid and the administration upon the estate has Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. been closed, are denied full faith and credit by the action of a probate court in another State in assuming jurisdiction and assessing inheritance taxes against the beneficiaries of the estate, when under the law of the former State the order of the probate court barring all creditors who had failed to bring in the demand from any further claim against the executors was binding upon all. Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 43. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U. S. 203. Against one of two joint tort-feasors.-Where a judgment of dismissal was entered in a Federal court in an action against one of two joint tort-feasors, 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 tort-feasor in another State. Bigelow v. Old Dominion, etc., Co. 225 U. S. 111. Judgment against a corporation which, by the laws of the State in which it is rendered, is binding on the stockholders, must be given by a court of another State the same conclusive effect against a stockholder who is sued therein; and the only defenses which he can make against it are those which he could make in the courts of the State in which it was rendered. Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640. Decree in home State of life insurance company issuing certificates on assessment plan, in a suit by certificate holders, that company had right to make advances from its mortuary fund to pay death claims and replenish the fund by assessments, held denied full faith and credit, in suit in another State by beneficiary not a party to the original suit. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Ibs, 237 U. S. 662. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 U. S. 146. Power to enjoin enforcement of foreign judgments.-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 a new trial in the action at law and the motion denied. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 13. Decree of dismissal.-A decree of dismissal, not on the merits, is not a bar to a subsequent suit in a court of another jurisdiction. Swift v. McPherson, 232 U. S. 51. Enforcement in other States.-A judgment enforceable in the State where rendered must be given effect in another State, under 2 Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. this clause, although the modes of procedure to enforce its collection may not be the same in both States. Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1. No execution can be issued in one State on the judgment of a court of another State without a new suit thereon in the tribunals of the former State. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107. A judgment recovered in one State against one of two joint defendants will support an action against him in another State although the judgment would have been invalid if rendered in the latter State. Full faith and credit to a judgment of another State, consisting of an entry stating that, the cause having been settled, it is discontinued by consent, without costs to either party, is not denied by admitting evidence that the discontinuance was not intended as a satisfaction of the cause of action, but was the result of a promissory agreement which was never complied with. Judgment based on an award of arbitration of controversy growing out of a gambling contract held entitled to credit in a sister State. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 277. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Prov. Co., 191 U. S. 373. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of United States 1 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under this clause when a State supreme court has decided against the effect which it was claimed proceedings in another State had, by the law and usage in that State. This provision does not require the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction of a case for the purpose of giving effect to a judgment obtained by a State against a citizen of another State in the courts of the State suing, when the suit was of such a nature that the Supreme Court could not have taken original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must judge for itself of the true nature and effect of the order relied on. Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall, 145. Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall, 621. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 293. Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 162 U. S. 335. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 684. 1 See same subject, p. 474. Section 2.-CITIZENS. Clause 1.-PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.1 Leading Cases In Connor v. Elliott (18 How. 593), it was said, referring to the phrase "privileges and immunities": It is safer and more in accordance with the duty of a judicial tribunal to leave its meaning to be determined, in each case, upon a view of the particular rights asserted and denied therein. In Ward v. Maryland (12 Wall. 430), it was said: An attempt will not be made to define the words "privileges and immunities," or to specify the rights which they are intended to secure and protect beyond what may be necessary to the decision of the case before the court. In Corfield v. Coryell (4 Wash. [U. S.] 371), Mr. Justice Washington gave a general definition of the phrase which the courts have, without hesitation, accepted and followed. In his opinion he says: The inquiry is, What are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union. What these fundamental principles are * * may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through, or to reside in any other State * * * to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State; * the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised (p. 380). See also * U. S. v. Wheeler, 254 U. S. 281. Paul v. Virginia (8 Wall. 168), holding that the term citizen as used in the clause in question applies only to natural persons, members of the body politic, owing allegiance to the State, not to artificial persons created by the legislature, and possessing only the attributes which the legislature has prescribed. At page 180 it was said: It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other 1 See Amend. 14, p. 651, for privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Sec. 2.-Citizens Cl. 1.-Privileges and Immunities States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws. It has been justly said that no provision in the Constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this. Slaughter House Cases (16 Wall. 76), in which the definition of privileges and immunities given in Corfield v. Coryell, supra, and Ward v. Maryland, supra, was approved. The court said: The description, when taken to include others not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted. Cole v. Cunningham (133 U. S. 113): The intention of section 2 of article 4 was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship and to communicate all the privileges and immunities which the citizens of the same State would be entitled to under the like circumstances, and this includes the right to institute actions. In Blake v. McClung (172 U. S. 252), Mr. Justice Harlan, after having reviewed the above cases, said: The foundation upon which the above cases rests can not, however, stand, if it be adjudged to be in the power of one State, when establishing regulations for the conduct of private business of a particular kind, to give its own citizens essential privileges connected with that business which it denies to citizens of other States. In the same case it was held (p. 259): A corporation is to be deemed for such purposes a citizen of a State under whose laws it was organized, but it is equally well settled and we now hold that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the constitutional provision.1 Nature of Privileges and Immunities Privileges Belonging to Citizenship No privileges are secured by this clause except those which belong to citizenship. Rights attached by the law to contracts, by reason of the place where such contracts are made or executed, wholly irrespective of the citizenship of the parties to those contracts, can not be deemed "privileges of a citizen," within the meaning of the Constitution. Connor v. Elliott, 18 How. 593. See also Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 136 U. S. 118. Pembina, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 186. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 180. Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U. S. 525. Right to Hold Real and Personal Property This clause secures and protects the right to acquire personal property and to take and hold real estate. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 430. See also Evans' Cases American Constitutional Law, p. 103, note. |