Hampton v. Connel
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MARSHALL |
| Citation | 3 Wheat. 234,4 L.Ed. 378,16 U.S. 234 |
| Parties | HAMPTON v. M'CONNEL |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1818 |
ERROR to the circuit court of the district of South Carolina.
The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff in error, in debt, on a judgment of the supreme court of the State of New York, to which the defendant below plead nil debet, and the plaintiff below demurred. The circuit court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below, and thereupon the cause was brought by writ of error to this court.
Mr. Hopkinson, for the plaintiff in error, suggested, that if, under any possible circumstances, the plea of nil debet could be a good bar to the action, a general demurrer was insufficient. He cited Mills v. Duryee,a
Page 235
and stated that the present case, might, perhaps, be distinguished from that, as it would seem that in Mills v. Duryee the defendant had actually appeared to the suit upon which the original judgment was recovered; but that in the present case there was no averment in the declaration to that effect, and the proceeding in the former suit might have been by attachment in rem, without notice to the party.
Mr. Law, for the defendant in error, relied upon the authority of Mills v. Duryee, as conclusive to show that nul tiel record ought to have been pleaded. He also cited Armstrong v. Carson's executors.b
Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL 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 pleaed in any other court in the United States.
Judgment affirmed.c
Page 236
a 7 Crauch, 481.
b 2 Dall. 302.
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 in 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina, 29
...as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.' Chief Justice Marshall stated in Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378, that 'the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, Page 294 validity, and effect, in every other court in t......
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt, 29
...provisions have made that which has been adjudicated in one state res judicata to the same extent in every other. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 18 L.Ed. 475; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039; Kenney v. Su......
-
Whitley v. Spokane & Inland Railway Co.
...to the Washington and Tennessee judgments. (Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch (U.S.), 481, 3 L.Ed. 412; Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. (U.S.) 234, 4 L.Ed. 378; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall, (U.S.) [23 Idaho 646] 123, 19 L.Ed. 604; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. (U.S.) 302, 18 L.Ed. 475.) Defendant has d......
-
John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock, 119
...is equally conclusive everywhere.' Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 302, 18 L. ed. 475, 478. Marshall, Ch. J., in Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234, 4 L. ed. 378; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481, 485, 3 L. ed. 411, 413; Story, Const. § 1313. See also Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. ......
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina, 29
...as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.' Chief Justice Marshall stated in Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378, that 'the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, Page 294 validity, and effect, in every other court in t......
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt, 29
...provisions have made that which has been adjudicated in one state res judicata to the same extent in every other. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234, 235, 4 L.Ed. 378; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 18 L.Ed. 475; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 28 S.Ct. 641, 52 L.Ed. 1039; Kenney v. Su......
-
Whitley v. Spokane & Inland Railway Co.
...to the Washington and Tennessee judgments. (Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch (U.S.), 481, 3 L.Ed. 412; Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. (U.S.) 234, 4 L.Ed. 378; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall, (U.S.) [23 Idaho 646] 123, 19 L.Ed. 604; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. (U.S.) 302, 18 L.Ed. 475.) Defendant has d......
-
John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock, 119
...is equally conclusive everywhere.' Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 302, 18 L. ed. 475, 478. Marshall, Ch. J., in Hampton v. M'Connel, 3 Wheat. 234, 4 L. ed. 378; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481, 485, 3 L. ed. 411, 413; Story, Const. § 1313. See also Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. ......