The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 130

[73] Griffin _v._ Griffin, 327 U.S. 220 (1946).

[74] Ibid. 228. An alimony case of a quite extraordinary pattern was that of Sutton _v._ Leib. On account of the diverse citizens.h.i.+p of the parties, who had once been husband and wife, the case was brought by the latter in a federal court in Illinois. Her suit was to recover unpaid alimony which was to continue until her remarriage. To be sure, she had, as she confessed, remarried in Nevada, but the marriage had been annulled in New York on the ground that the man was already married, inasmuch as his divorce from his previous wife was null and void, she having neither entered a personal appearance nor been personally served.

The Court, speaking by Justice Reed, held that the New York annulment of the Nevada marriage must be given full faith and credit in Illinois, but left Illinois to decide for itself the effect of the annulment upon the obligations of pet.i.tioner's first husband. Sutton _v._ Leib, 342 U.S.

402 (1952).

[75] Halvey _v._ Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 615 (1947).

[76] Johnson _v._ Muelberger, 341 U.S. 581 (1951).

[77] Tilt _v._ Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43 (1907); Burbank _v._ Ernst, 232 U.S.

162 (1914).

[78] Riley _v._ New York Trust Company, 315 U.S. 343 (1942).

[79] Brown _v._ Fletcher, 210 U.S. 82, 90 (1908). _See also_ Stacy _v._ Thrasher, Use of Sellers, 6 How. 44, 58 (1848); McLean _v._ Meek, 18 How. 16, 18, (1856).

[80] Tilt _v._ Kelsey, 207 U.S. 43 (1907). In the case of Borer _v._ Chapman, 119 U.S. 587, 599 (1887) involving a complicated set of facts, it was held, in 1887, that a judgment in a probate proceeding, which was merely ancillary to proceedings in another State and which ordered the residue of the estate to be a.s.signed to the legatee and discharged the executor from further liability, did not prevent a creditor, who was not a resident of the State in which the ancillary judgment was rendered, from setting up his claim in the State probate court which had the primary administration of the estate.

[81] Blodgett _v._ Silberman, 277 U.S. 1 (1928).

[82] Kerr _v._ Devisees of Moon, 9 Wheat. 565 (1824); McCormick _v._ Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192 (1825); Clarke _v._ Clarke, 178 U.S. 186 (1900). The controlling principle of these cases is not confined to proceedings in probate. A court of equity "not having jurisdiction of the _res_ cannot affect it by its decree nor by a deed made by a master in accordance with the decree." _See_ Fall _v._ Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 11 (1909).

[83] Robertson _v._ Pickrell, 109 U.S. 608, 611 (1883). _See also_ Darby _v._ Mayer, 10 Wheat. 465 (1825); Gasquet _v._ Fenner, 247 U.S. 16 (1918).

[84] Olmsted _v._ Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386 (1910).

[85] Hood _v._ McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (1915).

[86] Harris _v._ Balk, 198 U.S. 215 (1905). _See also_ Chicago, R.I. & Pac. Ry _v._ Sturm, 174 U.S. 710 (1899); King _v._ Cross, 175 U.S. 396, 399 (1899); Louisville & N.R. Co. _v._ Deer, 200 U.S. 176 (1906); Baltimore & O.R. Co. _v._ Hostetter, 240 U.S. 620 (1916).

[87] Christmas _v._ Russell, 5 Wall. 290 (1866); Maxwell _v._ Stewart, 21 Wall. 71 (1875); Hanley _v._ Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1 (1885); Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888); Simmons _v._ Saul, 138 U.S.

439 (1891); American Express Co. _v._ Mullins, 212 U.S. 311 (1909).

[88] Fauntleroy _v._ Lum, 210 U.S. 230 (1908).

[89] Anglo-American Provision Co. _v._ Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 (1903).

[90] 133 U.S. 107 (1890).

[91] The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 123 (1825). _See also_ Wisconsin _v._ Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888).

[92] 146 U.S. 657 (1892). _See also_ Dennick _v._ R.R. 103 U.S. 11 (1881).

[93] Milwaukee County _v._ White (N.E.) Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935). _See also_ Moore _v._ Mitch.e.l.l, 281 U.S. 18 (1930).

[94] Bank of Augusta _v._ Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 589-596 (1839). _See_ Kryger _v._ Wilson, 242 U.S. 171 (1916); Bond _v._ Hume, 243 U.S. 15 (1917).

[95] 19 How. 393, 460 (1857); Bonaparte _v._ Tax Court, 104 U.S. 592 (1882), where it was held that a law exempting from taxation certain bonds of the enacting State did not operate extraterritorially by virtue of the full faith and credit clause.

[96] Chicago & Alton R. Co. _v._ Wiggins Ferry, 119 U.S. 615, 622 (1887).

[97] Smithsonian Inst.i.tution _v._ St. John, 214 U.S. 19 (1909). When, in a State court, the validity of an act of the legislature of another State is not in question, and the controversy turns merely upon its interpretation or construction, no question arises under the full faith and credit clause. _See also_ Western Life Indemnity Co. _v._ Rupp, 235 U.S. 261 (1914), citing Glenn _v._ Garth, 147 U.S. 360 (1893); Lloyd _v._ Matthews, 155 U.S. 222, 227 (1894); Banholzer _v._ New York L. Ins.

Co., 178 U.S. 402 (1900); Allen _v._ Alleghany Co., 196 U.S. 458, 465 (1905); Texas & N.O.R. Co. _v._ Miller, 221 U.S. 408 (1911). _See also_ National Mut. Bldg. & Loan a.s.so. _v._ Brahan, 193 U.S. 635 (1904); Johnson _v._ New York Life Ins. Co., 187 U.S. 491, 495 (1903); Pennsylvania F. Ins. Co. _v._ Gold Issue Min. & Mill. Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917).

[98] Alaska Packers a.s.so. _v._ Industrial Acci. Commission, 294 U.S. 532 (1935); Bradford Electric Light Co. _v._ Clapper, 286 U.S. 145 (1932).

[99] Dennick _v._ R.R., 103 U.S. 11 (1881) was the first of the so-called "Death Act" cases to reach the Supreme Court. _See also_ Stewart _v._ B.& O.R. Co., 168 U.S. 445 (1897). Even today the obligation of a State to furnish a forum for the determination of death claims arising in another State under the laws thereof appears to rest on a rather precarious basis. In Hughes _v._ Fetter, 341 U.S. 609 (1951), the Court, by a narrow majority, held invalid under the full faith and credit clause a statute of Wisconsin which, as locally interpreted, forbade its courts to entertain suits of this nature; and in First National Bank _v._ United Air Lines, 342 U.S. 396 (1952), a like result was reached as to an Illinois statute. In both cases the same four Justices dissented.

[100] 119 U.S. 615 (1887).

[101] Northern Pac. R.R. _v._ Babc.o.c.k, 154 U.S. 190 (1894); Atchison, T.

& S.F.R. Co. _v._ Sowers, 213 U.S. 55, 67 (1909).

[102] Glenn _v._ Garth, 147 U.S. 360 (1893).

[103] Tennessee Coal Co. _v._ George, 233 U.S. 354 (1914).

[104] Klaxon Co. _v._ Stentor, 313 U.S. 487 (1941); John Hanc.o.c.k Mut.

Life Ins. Co. _v._ Yates, 299 U.S. 178 (1936) distinguished.

[105] Modern Woodmen of Am. _v._ Mixer, 267 U.S. 544 (1925).

[106] Converse _v._ Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243 (1912); Selig _v._ Hamilton, 234 U.S. 652 (1914); Marin _v._ Augedahl, 247 U.S. 142 (1918).

[107] Broderick _v._ Rosner, 294 U.S. 629 (1935). _See also_ Thormann _v._ Frame, 176 U.S. 350, 356 (1900); Reynolds _v._ Stockton, 140 U.S.

254, 264 (1891).

[108] Hanc.o.c.k Nat. Bank. _v._ Farnum, 176 U.S. 640 (1900).

[109] 237 U.S. 531 (1916); followed in Modern Woodmen of Am. _v._ Mixer, 267 U.S. 544 (1925).

[110] 305 U.S. 66, 75, 79 (1938).

[111] 331 U.S. 586, 588-589, 637 (1947).

[112] New York Life Ins. Co. _v._ Head, 234 U.S. 149 (1914); Aetna Life Ins. Co. _v._ Dunken, 266 U.S. 389 (1924).

[113] 193 U.S. 635 (1904).

[114] National Mutual B. & L. a.s.so. _v._ Brahan, 193 U.S. 635 (1904).

[115] New York Life Ins. Co. _v._ Cravens, 178 U.S. 389 (1900). _See also_ American Fire Ins. Co. _v._ King Lumber Co., 250 U.S. 2 (1919).

[116] Griffin _v._ McCoach, 313 U.S. 498 (1941).

[117] 314 U.S. 201, 206-208 (1941). However, a decree of a Montana Supreme Court, insofar as it permitted judgment creditors of a dissolved Iowa surety company to levy execution against local a.s.sets to satisfy judgment, as against t.i.tle to such a.s.sets of the Iowa insurance commissioner as statutory liquidator and successor to the dissolved company, was held to deny full faith and credit to the statutes of Iowa.--Clark _v._ Willard, 292 U.S. 112 (1934).

[118] 324 U.S. 154, 159-160 (1945).