191 U.S. 373 (1903), 64, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. No. 1
|Docket Nº:||No. 64|
|Citation:||191 U.S. 373, 24 S.Ct. 92, 48 L.Ed. 225|
|Party Name:||Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. No. 1|
|Case Date:||November 30, 1903|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
Argued November 6, 9, 1903
ERROR To THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Consistently with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, a state may deny jurisdiction to the courts of the state over suits by a corporation of another state against a corporation of another state on a foreign judgment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HOLMES, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of New York. The parties are both Illinois corporations, and the plaintiff in error brought suit in the New York supreme court upon an Illinois judgment. By the New York Code of Civil Procedure, § 1780, it is provided that
an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by another foreign corporation, or by a nonresident, in one of the following cases only: . . . 3. Where the cause of action arose within the state, etc.
The other cases are immaterial. The complaint does not allege that the original cause of action arose within the state, if that would make any difference in the result. The complaint was dismissed by the Supreme Court on a demurrer setting up the above section, and the judgment was affirmed by the appellate division and by the Court of Appeals. 169 N.Y. 506. It was argued below that, under Article IV., Section 1, of the Constitution
of the United States, the state could not thus exclude foreign corporations from suing upon judgments obtained in another state, because to do so was to deny full faith and credit to those judgments. The decision to the contrary is the error assigned.
The state court decides that the cause of action did not arise within the state in the sense of the words of the Code, and, of course, we follow its construction, subject to the inquiry whether the statute as construed is consistent with the Constitution of the United States. See Northern Central Railway Co. v. Maryland, 187 U.S. 258, 267. The court also decides that the language quoted goes to the jurisdiction of the court.
We are of opinion that the section of the Code as construed is not unconstitutional. The precise point has...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP