Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Hampton v. M'connel
16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 234
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1818-02-24
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- full faith and credit given on a money judgment
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hampton v. M'connel. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 223 opinions
Headnotes
- Civil Procedure — Full Faith and Credit The judgment of a state court must be given the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court of the United States that it has in the state where it was pronounced; whatever pleas would be good to a suit on the judgment in that state, and none others, may be pleaded in any other court in the United States.
- Civil Procedure — Authentication of Records Under the Act of 1790, ch. 38, a duly authenticated record of a judgment is entitled to such faith and credit as it has in the state court from which it was taken; if the judgment has the effect of record evidence in that court, it must have the same effect in every other court within the United States.
- Civil Procedure — Proof of Record In every case arising under the Act of 1790, the only inquiry is what is the effect of the judgment in the state where it was rendered, and an exemplification of the original record is sufficient without producing the original for inspection.
- Civil Procedure — Pleading A plea of nil debet to an action on a state judgment cannot be sustained on demurrer, and the decision in Mills v. Duryee established only that nil debet is not a proper plea, not that nul tiel record is the only proper plea; any plea that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would be good.
- Civil Procedure — Defenses The question remains open whether a special plea of fraud, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained, may be pleaded to avoid a state judgment, since such pleas might in some cases be available in the state court.
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 plea-ed in any either court in the United States.
Judgment affirmed. 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 rn every other state, declaring that the record of a judgment duly authenticated shall have such faith and *236 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 States. 2d. That in every case arising ynder the act, the only inquiry is,what is. the effect of the judgment in t.he state where it was rendered. 3d. That whatever might be the effect of a plea of nil deb'et to an action on a state judgment, after verdict, it could not be sustained on demurrer. 4th. That on such a plea the original record need sot be produced for inspection, but thát an exemplification thereof is sufficient. 5th. That the act applies to the courts of the-district of Colombia, and to every -other court within the United States.
In the argument of Bordon v Fitch, 15. Johns. Rep, 121. in the supreme court 'of Nevr York, it sce.ms to have been supposed that this court had decided in Mills v. Duryee, that nul tiel record was the only proper plea to.an action upon a state judgment. But it is. conceived that as to the pleadings, it only decided that nil debet tfas not a proper plea; and that the court would hold that any plea (as well as nul tiel record) that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would, be good. However this may be,- it "may safely be affirmed, that the question is still open in this court whether a special plea of fraud might not be pleaded, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained; for these might, in' some cases, be pleaded in the state court to avoid the judgment.