Guthrie v. Lowry
| Decision Date | 25 June 1877 |
| Citation | 84 Pa. 533 |
| Parties | Guthrie <I>versus</I> Lowry. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, PAXSON, WOODWARD and STERRETT, JJ. GORDON, J., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield county: Of May Term 1877, No. 34.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Wallace & Krebs, for plaintiff in error.—Under the provisions of the constitution of the United States and the Act of Congress of 26th of May 1790, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, the decree of the "Louisville Chancery Court" has the same force and effect in this state as in Kentucky: Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481; Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234; Caldwell et al. v. Carrington's Heirs, 9 Peters 100; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 148; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Id. 123; Story's Const., vol. 2, 4th ed., 188. This principle has been recognised by this court: Benton v. Bergot, 10 S. & R. 243; Baxley v. Linah, 4 Harris 241; Rogers v. Burns, 3 Casey 526; Blyler v. Kline, 14 P. F. Smith 133; Wetherill v. Stillman, 15 Id. 105; Reber v. Wright, 18 Id. 476.
Lowry sought the Kentucky court and placed himself within its jurisdiction when he filed his original bill. He was thus in court by his own act and the cross-bill was but a part of the subsequent proceedings thus begun, and not in the nature of an original bill of which Lowry was entitled to personal notice.
McEnally & McCurdy, for defendant in error.—The record of another state is not conclusive of the existence of the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction and those facts may be inquired into and contradicted: Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Knowles v. Gas-light and Coke Co., 19 Id. 58; Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Id. 453. The same doctrine has been sustained in our courts: Steel v. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447; Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 29 P. F. Smith 354.
Whatever doubts may have been at one time entertained and expressed, it is now an incontrovertible position that in an action upon a judgment of the court of a sister state the record may be contradicted by evidence of facts impeaching the jurisdiction of the court by which the judgment was rendered: Williamson v. Berry, 8 Howard 540; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Knowles v. Gas-light and Coke Company, 19 Id. 59; Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Id. 453; Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 29 P. F. Smith 354. But when a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court: Elliott v. Piersol, 1 Peters 328, 340.
When Lowry filed his bill in the Louisville Chancery Court, he thereby submitted himself to the jurisdiction of that court. He was in court, and subject to whatever orders and decrees that court could make according to the laws of Kentucky. What those laws authorized was a matter to be decided by that tribunal, and their decision was open to appeal to their highest court, and could be there reviewed, but not re-examined collaterally in any other court, nor in the courts of any other state in which an action might be brought upon the record. For if it could not be examined collaterally in the courts of the state in which it is rendered, neither could it be so examined in the courts of any other state. The constitution of the United States declares that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state," and the Act of Congress of May 26th 1790 has enacted that "the said records and judicial proceedings 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 whence the said records are or shall be taken."
Whether Lowry, being the plaintiff or complainant in a bill in the Chancery Court, could be made to answer to a cross-bill filed against him in that court for a matter not growing out of the subject-matter of the bill,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Hughes
...Conflict of Laws § 83; Restatement Judgments § 21, comment c; Rogers v. Burns, 1856, 27 Pa. 525, at page 527; Guthrie v. Lowry, 1877, 84 Pa. 533, at page 537, and see Newman v. Shreve, 1910, 229 Pa. 200, at page 214, 78 A. 79. "Where one puts in motion the process of a court or seeks to use......
-
Mitchell v. Liberty Clay Products Co.
...41, 67 A. 910; Hughes v. Schreiner, 202 Pa. 488, 52 A. 30; Price v. Schaffer, 161 Pa. 530, 29 A. 279, 25 L. R. A. 699; Guthrie v. Lowry, 84 Pa. 533; Levison v. Blumenthal, 25 Pa. Super. Ct. 55. A state court has jurisdiction of the claim of a local creditor against a local corporation and i......
-
Levison v. Blumenthal
...correct or otherwise, its judgment until reversed is regarded as binding in every other court:" Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U.S. 328; Guthrie v. Lowry, 84 Pa. 533. plaintiffs' action in the city of New York was founded upon a book account for goods sold and delivered the defendant. The defendant......
-
Martin v. Martin
...jurisdiction of the executor and trustee, and also jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the trust: Moore v. Field, 42 Pa. 467; Guthrie v. Lowry, 84 Pa. 533; App., 101 Pa. 165; Van Dyke's App., 4 W.N.C. 283. It is a rule of law as salutary as it is settled that the jurisdiction of the court......