Provision Company v. Davis Provision Company, ANGLO-AMERICAN

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Holmes
• Citation: 24 S.Ct. 92,48 L.Ed. 225,191 U.S. 373
• Parties: PROVISION COMPANY, Piff. in Err. , v. DAVIS PROVISION COMPANY
• Docket Number: ANGLO-AMERICAN,No. 64
• Decision Date: 30 November 1903

191 U.S. 373 24 S.Ct. 92 48 L.Ed. 225 ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION COMPANY, Piff. in Err.,

v.

DAVIS PROVISION COMPANY.

No. 64. Argued November 6, 9, 1903. Decided November 30, 1903.

Mr. Henry Wilson Bridges for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Frank E. Smith and Thomas F. Conway for defendant in error.

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, 62 N. E. 587. It was argued below that, under article IV., § 1, of the Constitution

Page 374

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 C. R. Co. v. Maryland, 187 U. S. 258, 267, 47 L. ed. 167, 172, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 62. 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 not been decided by this court, but it has been laid down in cases which raise greater difficulties than the present, that this provision of the Constitution establishes a rule of evidence rather than of jurisdiction. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U. S. 265, 291, 32 L. ed. 239, 243, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1370; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14, 36, 47 L. ed. 366, 371, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 237. The Constitution does not require the state of New York to give jurisdiction to the supreme court against its will. If the plaintiff can find a court into which it has a right to come, then the effect of the judgment is fixed by the...