Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Public Acts and Records. Of the Territories By the act of March 27, 1804, Congress extended the rights under this clause of the Constitution to the public acts, records, judicial proceedings etc., of the Territories of the United States and countries subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Sowers, 213 U. S. 55. Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S. 567. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 291. Swift v. McPherson, 232 U. S. 51. State Constitution The duty to give full force and effect to the constitution of another State is as obligatory as the similar duty in respect to the judicial proceedings of that State. Smithsonian Inst. v. St. John, 214 U. S. 19. No Reference to Conduct of Individuals or Corporations Even if it be assumed that the word "acts" includes "statutes," the clause has nothing to do with the conduct of individuals or corporations. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 72. Construction of Statute of Another State The mere construction by a State court of a statute of another State, without questioning its validity, does not, with possibly some exceptions, deny to it the full faith and credit demanded by the statute in order to give the Federal courts jurisdiction. Allen v. Alleghany Co., 196 U. S. 465. Penn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Min. Co., 243 U. S. 93. Where, in a State court, the validity of an act of the legislature of another State is not in question, and the controversy turns merely upon its interpretation or construction, no question arises under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Federal Constitution. Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U. S. 261. See also Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360. Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 227. Banholzer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 178 U. S. 402. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Melton, 218 U. S. 36. Texas, etc., Co. v. Miller, 221 U. S. 408. Effect of Venue Clause of Another State A statute of another State giving a right of action to an employee when injured should be given full faith and credit and may be sued on in another State notwithstanding the statute also provides that all actions (under the statute) must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within that State and not elsewhere. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354. Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Public Acts and Records. Contract Not Controlled by Law of Another State If a contract can not be regarded as controlled by the law of another State, there is no foundation for the contention that full faith and credit were not given to the public acts and records of that State. National, etc., Assn. v. Brahan, 193 U. S. 647. Taxation of State Debt The registered public debt of one State, exempt from taxation by the debtor State, is taxable by another State when owned by a resident of the latter State. No State can legislate except with reference to its own jurisdiction. Bonaparte v. Tax Ct., 104 U. S. 594. Effect of Statute on Title to Property in Another State A statute legitimatizing children born out of wedlock does not control the devolution of title to real property in another State by will. Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U. S. 386. Charter of Foreign Fraternal Association Where all the rights concerning an assessment to be paid to a fraternal corporation have their source in its constitution, resort must be had to that constitution, and the laws of the State in which the corporation was chartered must necessarily be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the significance of the corporation's constitution. Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531. To Judicial Proceedings In General The constitutional requirement that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State is necessarily to be interpreted in connection with other provisions of the Constitution, and therefore no State can obtain in the tribunals of other jurisdictions full faith and credit for its judicial proceedings if they are wanting in the due process of law enjoined by the fundamental law. Old Wayne, etc., Assn. v. McDonough, 204 U. S. 15. International Ins. Co. v. Sherman, 262 U. S. 346. Effect of Proceedings of United States Courts The power to prescribe what effect shall be given to the judicial proceedings of the courts of the United States is conferred by other provisions of the Constitution, such as those which declare the extent of the judicial power of the United States, which authorize all legislation necessary and proper for executing the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, and which declare the supremacy of the authority of the National Government within the limits of the Constitution. As part of its general authority, the power to Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. give effect to the judgments of its courts is coextensive with its territorial jurisdiction. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 9. Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Assn., 203 U. S. 106. Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U. S. 30. Faith and Credit to Be Given by United States Courts The courts of the United States are bound to give to the judgments of the State courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one State are bound to give to the judgments of the courts of her sister States. Cooper v. Newell, 173 U. S. 567. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 291. Swift v. McPherson, 232 U. S. 51. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234. Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 81. Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 123. Insurance Company v. Harris, 97 U. S. 336. Gibson v. Lyon, 115 U. S. 439. U. S. v. Mason, 213 U. S. 115. A judgment in a State court which has not been rendered on personal service of process is not one to which Federal courts will give effect. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 729. Territorial Court in Hawaii The refusal of a Territorial court in Hawaii, having jurisdiction of the action which was on a policy issued by a New York insurance company, to admit evidence that an administrator had been appointed and a suit brought by him on a bond in the Federal court in New York wherein no judgment had been entered did not violate this clause. Equitable Life v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308. Judgments in Rem Holding an express company liable to the consignor of a shipment of liquor which was seized and destroyed under a default judgment rendered in a court of another State in a proceeding in rem denies to such judgment full faith and credit where the company notified the consignor of the seizure in time and received from him an assurance that he would contest its legality. American Exp. Co. v. Mullins, 212 U. S. 311. South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Gest, 34 Fed. 628; appeal dismissed in 131 U. S. 436. Judgments of Foreign States and Nations No right, privilege, or immunity is conferred by the Constitution in respect to the judgments of foreign States or nations. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay, 223 U. S. 185. Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. Protection of Clause Must Be Claimed The claim of the protection of the full faith and credit clause is without merit when nowhere in its petition for interpleader or in the proceedings had thereunder in the State courts did the intervener set up rights, specifically based on a foreign-State judgment, claim for that judgment an effect which if denied to it would have impaired its force and effect, nor predicate any right to the relief demanded upon the effect due to the foreignState judgment. Wabash R. Co. v. Flannigan, 192 U. S. 37. By defending on the merits, after pleading and relying upon a foreign judgment, a party does not waive the benefits of an alleged estoppel arising from the foreign judgment. Harding v. Harding, 198 U. S. 330. When Merits of Case Pleaded When the plaintiff alleges his cause of action fully on the merits and on the grounds of the defendant's alleged liability, and the reference to the judgment obtained in another State is primarily if not solely as fixing the amount of the plaintiff's claim, the provisions of this clause have not been invoked and relied on. Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477. Enforcement of Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures This provision confers no new jurisdiction on the courts of any State, and therefore does "not authorize them to take jurisdiction of a suit or prosecution of such a penal nature that it can not, on settled rules of public and international law be entertained by the judiciary of any other State than that in which the penalty was incurred." Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 685. Atchison, etc., Ry. v. Nichols, 264 U. S. 348. Establishing Violation of Right The burden is upon the party asserting it to establish the failure of a court to give to decrees of a Federal court and the court of another State the due effect to which they are entitled. Commercial Pub. Co. v. Beckwith, 188 U. S. 573. Effect of Foreign Judgment Effect declared by act of Congress.-Congress has power to declare what shall be the effect of a judgment of a State court in another State. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 326. Alabama State Bank v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411. Rule of evidence and not rule of jurisdiction.-This clause and the act of Congress passed thereunder establish a rule of evidence rather than of jurisdiction. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 291. Anglo-American Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co., 191 U. S. 374. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 72. Sec. 1.-Faith and Credit-Judicial Proceedings. Judgment recovered in one State is conclusive evidence of the debt in another. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 484; but see Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, holding that a judgment obtained in one State is, in another, but prima facie evidence of indebtedness. Jurisdiction of the person.-To entitle the judgment of a sister State to full faith and credit it must have been rendered with jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165. German Savings etc., Soc. v. Dormitzer, 192 U. S. 125. Same effect as in State in which rendered.—A judgment of a State court, in a cause within its jurisdiction, and against a defendant lawfully summoned, or against lawfully attached property of an absent defendant, is entitled to as much force and effect against the person summoned or the property attached, when the question is presented for decision in a court of another State, as it has in the State in which it was rendered. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 3. Bigelow v. Old Dominion, etc., Co., 225 U. S. 111. No greater effect can be given to any judgment of a court of one State in another State than is given to it in the State where rendered; that is to say, as to whether a judgment is a final or an interlocutory one. Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521. Conclusive on the merits. When duly pleaded and proved, judgments of other States have the effect of being not merely prima facie evidence but conclusive proof of the rights thereby adjudicated. A judgment can not be impeached either in or out of the State by showing that it was based on a mistake of law. A plea of nil debet to an action brought on a judgment obtained in a State court of another State is inadmissible, for, whatever doubts there might be on the words of the Constitution, the act of Congress effectually removes them, declaring in direct terms that the record shall have the same effect in the Federal court as in the court from which it was taken. Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 685. Everett v. Everett, 215 U. S. 203. American Exp. Co. v. Mullins, 212 U. S. 312. Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall. 303. Between same parties and privies.-There is no such relation between the executor and an administrator with the will an |