Mills v. Duryee
| Decision Date | 10 March 1813 |
| Parties | MILLS v. DURYEE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia in an action of debt upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of the state of New York, to which the Defendant below pleaded Nil debet, which plea, upon general demurrer, was adjudged bad.
By the constitution of the United States, art. 4, sect. 1, it is declared, that
The act of May 26th, 1790, vol. 1, p. 115, after providing the mode by which they shall be authenticated, declares, that 'the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, 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.'
And by the supplementary act of March 27th, 1804, vol. 7, p. 153, § 2, it is declared, that the provisions of the original act of 26th May, 1790, shall apply as well to the records and Courts of the respective territories of the United States and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as to the records and Courts of the several states.
F. S. KEY, for Plaintiff in error.
The true construction of that part of the constitution and laws of the United States will confine their operation to evidence only, and will not justify such an alteration in the rules of pleading. The 'effect' to be given to such copies is their 'effect' as evidence, for it is not pretended that an execution could issue here upon such a record.
If nul tiel record is the proper plea, or could be pleaded in such a case, there are no means of procuring and inspecting the original record, (which is essential under such an issue:) and the constitution and law, not having provided for this, it must be presumed, did not intend it.
The record in this case is not the original—it is certified and authenticated as a copy; and therefore unless entitled to more faith and credit here than in New York, it could not be offered to the Court upon the plea of nul tiel record, for under that issue this record, even in New York, would not be admitted. The original must be produced and inspected.
But if this record would be entitled to such consideration in another state, by force of the constitution and law, it is not entitled to it in this district, which is not a state. 1 Dal. 261, Phelps v. Holker. id. 188, James v. Allen. 1 N. Y. T. R. 460, Hitchcock v. Aicken. 1 Mass. T. R. 401, Bartlett v. Knight.
JONES, contra.
It is admitted that a record authenticated pursuant to the act of Congress, is to have the effect of evidence only; but it is evidence of the highest nature, viz. record evidence.
In every case of debt or contract the form and effect of the plea are determined by the dignity of that debt or contract; in other words by the dignity of the evidence, whether it be of record, by specialty, or simple contract.
The act of Congress makes the authenticated exemplication of the record equivalent to the original record in its proper state; and communicates to it the same effect as evidence, thereby making it capable of sustaining the same averments in pleading, and of abiding the same tests, as the original record. It therefore cannot be denied or controverted by any plea, such as nil debet, which goes to put in issue before the jury the matters averred by the record, and the existence of the record itself; but the Defendant must either distinctly deny the record, or avoid it by pleading per fraudem, satisfaction, &c. 2 Dall. 302, Armstrong v. Carson.
In allowing this conclusive effect to the evidence of the authenticated record, it is immaterial that it has not the further effect of enabling the ministerial officers of the law to issue an execution thereon, for that objection would be equally valid against the record when used in its proper state, but out of the jurisdiction of its proper Court; and also against the sentences of foreign Courts of admiralty under the law of nations.
The act of congress communicates to the authenticated record the effect of record evidence in all Courts within the United States, and does not limit it to the Courts in any state, as supposed by the Plaintiff in error.
March 11th.
The question in this case is whether nil debet is a good plea to an action of debt brought in the Courts of this district on a judgment rendered in a Court of record of the state of New York, one of the United States.
The decision of this question depends altogether upon the construction of the constitution and laws of the United States.
By the constitution it is declared 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 congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.'
By the act of 26th May, 1790, ch. 11, congress provided for the mode of authenticating the records and judicial proceedings of the state Courts, and then further declared that 'the records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, 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.'
It is argued that this act provides only for the admission of such records as evidence, but does not declare the effect of such evidence when admitted. This argument cannot be supported, The act declares that the record duly authenticated shall have such faith and credit as it has in the state Court from whence it is taken. If in such Court it has the faith and credit of evidence of the highest nature, viz. record evidence, it must have the same faith and credit in every other Court. Congress have therefore declared the effect of the record by declaring what faith and credit shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union & Planters' Bank of Memphis v. City of Memphis
... ... this difference is wholly due to the constitutional and ... legislative provision already cited. Mills v. Duryee, 7 ... Cranch, 481, 484, 485, 3 L.Ed. 411; D'Arcy v ... Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 175, 176, 13 L.Ed. 648; Hanley ... v. Donoghue, 116 ... ...
-
Sun Oil Company v. Wortman
...be proposed that Congress legislate to that effect under the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, cf. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481, 485, 3 L.Ed. 411 (1813); Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S., at 502, 59 S.Ct., at 633. It is not the function ......
-
Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corporation
...chosen by the State from which the judgment is taken. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 326, 10 L.Ed. 177 (1839); Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481, 485, 3 L.Ed. 411 (1813). As we recently noted in Allen v. McCurry, supra, "though the federal courts may look to the common law or to the policies ......
-
Bradford Electric Light Co v. Clapper
...1790, c. 11, Act of March 27, 1804, c. 56, § 2, Rev. Stat. § 905, U. S. Code, tit. 28, § 687 (28 USCA § 687). 4 Compare Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481, 3 L. Ed. 411; Rev. Stat. §§ 905, 906 (28 USCA §§ 687, 688). See, also, Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 72, 24 S. Ct. 59......
-
Marriage and divorce
...or nonresident, who may request it so to do.”). 78. See Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146, 151–52 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481, 485 (1813)) (finding that the Supreme Court has consistently held that Full Faith and Credit under Article IV of the Constitution is limited to ......
-
Table of Cases
...v., 130 Fed. Appx. 108 (9th Cir. 2005), reversing, 228 F.Supp.2d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2002), 1009 Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481, 3 L.Ed. 411, 484 (1813), 997 Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 513 U.S. 414, 115 S.Ct. 981, 130 L.Ed.2d 932 (1995), 154 Mi......
-
Marriage & Divorce
...or nonresident, who may request it so to do.”). 63. See Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146, 151–52 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. 481, 485 (1813)) (finding that the Supreme Court has consistently held that Full Faith and Credit under Article IV of the Constitution is limited to ......