HAMPTON
v.
M'CONNEL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a judgment rendered by a state court must receive the same credit, validity, and effect in all other courts of the United States as it possessed in the state where it was pronounced, and that only those pleas that would be valid against the judgment in the originating state court may be pleaded against it in other courts. The Court affirmed the judgment, applying the same Full Faith and Credit Act principles it had established in Mills v. Duryee.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr,. Chief Justice Ma»shai,l delivered the opinion of the court. This is precisely the same case as that of Mills v. Duryee. The court cannot distinguish the two cases. The doctrine there held was that the judgment of. a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court • of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to.a suit thereon in such state, and none others, could be plea-ed in any either court in the United States.
Judgment affirmed.c
c
In Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481. the following points were adjudged: 1st That the act of 1790, ch. 38, prescribing the mode in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, in each state, shall be so authenticated as to take effect rn every other state, declaring that the record of a judgment duly authenticated shall have such faith and credit as it has in' the state court from whence it was taken; if in such court it has the. effect of record evidence, it must have the same effect in every other court within the United States. 2d. That in every case arising ynder the act, the only inquiry is,what is. the effect of the judgment in t.he state where it was rendered. 3d. That whatever might be the effect of a plea of nil deb'et to an action on a state judgment, after verdict, it could not be sustained on demurrer. 4th. That on such a plea the original record need sot be produced for inspection, but thát an exemplification thereof is sufficient. 5th. That the act applies to the courts of the-district of Colombia, and to every -other court within the United States.
In the argument of Bordon v Fitch, 15. Johns. Rep, 121. in the supreme court 'of NevrYork, it sce.ms to have been supposed that this court had decided in Mills v. Duryee, that nul tiel record was the only proper plea to.an action upon a state judgment. But it is. conceived that as to the pleadings, it only decided that nil debet tfas not a proper plea; and that the court would hold that any plea (as well as nul tiel record) that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would, be good. However this may be,- it "may safely be affirmed, that the question is still open in this court whether a special plea of fraud might not be pleaded, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained; for these might, in' some cases, be pleaded in the state court to avoid the judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Egbert C. Sammis v. James, 31 Fla. 10 (Fla. 1893)
-
Lanigan v. Lanigan, 78 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1955)…was pronounced; only those pleas which would be good to a suit thereon in such state — and no others — can be pleaded in any other court in the United States for the purpose of attacking the validity or effect of such judgment. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 4 L.Ed. 378. In Keena v. Keena, 1928, 222 Mo.App. 825, 10 S.W. 2d 344, 346, where the wife attacked an Illinois divorce in a Missouri court on the ground that the husband had made a false affidavit as to her residence, the court said: “The fundam…
-
Haydee Rodriguez v. Nasrallah, 659 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…t, in order to fulfill this constitutional mandate, “the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.” Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378 (1818) (Marshall, C.J.) Underwriters Nat’l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691, 703-04, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982). “This construction is also compelled by 28 U.S.…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481 (U.S. 1813)
- Armstrong versus Carson's Executors, 2 Dall. 302 (C.C.D. Pa. 1794)