Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Anglo-Am. Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co. No. 1, 191 U.S. 373 (1903)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a Supreme Court case from 1903 regarding whether a New York statute restricting foreign corporations from suing other foreign corporations in New York courts violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Constitution because: 1) The Full Faith and Credit Clause establishes a rule of evidence, not jurisdiction, and does not require New York to provide its courts; 2) The plaintiff foreign corporation had no right to access New York courts under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; and 3) Prior cases cited by the plaintiff were distinguishable because they involved citizens or did not deal with jurisdiction. Therefore, states have broad power to restrict foreign corporations' access to their courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Anglo-Am. Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co. No. 1, 191 U.S. 373 (1903)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    33 views3 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court case from 1903 regarding whether a New York statute restricting foreign corporations from suing other foreign corporations in New York courts violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Constitution because: 1) The Full Faith and Credit Clause establishes a rule of evidence, not jurisdiction, and does not require New York to provide its courts; 2) The plaintiff foreign corporation had no right to access New York courts under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; and 3) Prior cases cited by the plaintiff were distinguishable because they involved citizens or did not deal with jurisdiction. Therefore, states have broad power to restrict foreign corporations' access to their courts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1903-11-30 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 191 U.S. 373 Docket: 64

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court case from 1903 regarding whether a New York statute restricting foreign corporations from suing other foreign corporations in New York courts violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Constitution because: 1) The Full Faith and Credit Clause establishes a rule of evidence, not jurisdiction, and does not require New York to provide its courts; 2) The plaintiff foreign corporation had no right to access New York courts under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; and 3) Prior cases cited by the plaintiff were distinguishable because they involved citizens or did not deal with jurisdiction. Therefore, states have broad power to restrict foreign corporations' access to their courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    33 views3 pages

    Anglo-Am. Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co. No. 1, 191 U.S. 373 (1903)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a Supreme Court case from 1903 regarding whether a New York statute restricting foreign corporations from suing other foreign corporations in New York courts violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. The Court held that the statute did not violate the Constitution because: 1) The Full Faith and Credit Clause establishes a rule of evidence, not jurisdiction, and does not require New York to provide its courts; 2) The plaintiff foreign corporation had no right to access New York courts under the Privileges and Immunities Clause; and 3) Prior cases cited by the plaintiff were distinguishable because they involved citizens or did not deal with jurisdiction. Therefore, states have broad power to restrict foreign corporations' access to their courts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    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 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.
    3

    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 Constitution and the act in pursuance of it which
    Congress has passed. Rev. Stat. 905 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 677). But the
    Constitution does not require the state to provide such a court. See Missouri v.
    Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 30, sub nom. Bowman v. Lewis, 25 L. ed. 989, 992. If the
    state does provide a court to which its own citizens may resort in a certain class
    of cases, it may be that citizens of other states of the Union also would have a
    right to resort to it in cases of the same class. Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239,
    256, 43 L. ed. 432, 438, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165. But that right, even when the suit
    was upon a judgment of another state, would not rest on the 1st section of
    article IV., on which alone the plaintiff relies or can rely, but would depend on
    the 2d section, entitling the citizens of each state to all privileges and
    immunities of citizens in the several states. The plaintiff is not a citizen within
    this section (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 19 L. ed. 357; Waters-Pierce Oil Co.
    v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 45, 44 L. ed. 657, 664, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518), and did
    not set it up. The general power of a state to restrict the right of a foreign
    corporation to sue in its courts is assumed in Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet.
    519, 589-591, 10 L. ed. 274, 308, 309. As to discrimination against
    nonresidents, see Chemung Canal Bank v. Lowery, 93 U. S. 72, 23 L. ed. 806.

    The plaintiff lays great stress upon Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 18 L. ed.
    475. In that case suit was brought in Mississippi on a Kentucky judgment
    against a citizen of Mississippi upon a promissory note made in Mississippi,
    and payable in New Orleans. A suit upon the note would have been barred by
    the Mississippi statute of limitations when the suit in Kentucky was begun, and
    the defendant set up a statute of Mississippi providing that no action should be
    maintained upon a judgment rendered in such circumstances without the state
    against a resident of the state. It was held that the statute was void, and that, as
    the judgment was valid in Kentucky, it could not be treated as invalid in
    Mississippi. It will be observed that this was a suit by a citizen. There was no
    suggestion that the statute went to the jurisdiction of the court. Obviously it did

    not. Indeed, the suit was brought in the United States circuit court. The statute
    made no discrimination in the right to come into court, according to the
    character of the plaintiff or of the cause of action, but attempted to create a
    defense against a plaintiff assumed to have a right to come into court and to
    invoke the jurisdiction. But when the plaintiff was in court, and exhibited his
    judgment, it was too late for the state to interfere. In the case at bar the plaintiff
    had no right to come into the New York supreme court.
    5

    What, if any, limits there may be to state restrictions upon the jurisdiction of
    state courts, when such restrictions do not encounter article IV., 2, of the
    Constitution, it is unnecessary to discuss. But we think it too plain for further
    argument that the New York restriction upon suits by foreign corporations
    against foreign corporations is not affected by either 1 or 2 of article IV. It
    will be time enough to consider the suggestion that the law is an interference
    with interstate commerce, within Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727,
    734, 28 L. ed. 1137, 1139, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739, when the record presents it.
    The question is one of degree, and it is obvious that the supposed interference
    is very remote. See Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co. 187 U. S.
    611, 616, 47 L. ed. 328, 332, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206.

    Judgment affirmed.

    You might also like