delivered the opinion of' the court.
In а proceeding against the plaintiff in error, wherein he was fully heard, the civil district court of the pаrish of his residence and domicile pronounced a judgment of interdiction against him. He appеaled to the Supreme Court of the State, which affirmed the judgment (136 Louisiana, 967), and thereafter he sued out this writ of error. Our . jurisdiction is challenged by a motion to dismiss.
There are three assignments of error, and the facts essential to an understanding of two of them are these: After the judgment of interdiction and before-the hearing upon the appeal the plaintiff in error, who was in custody under an order of thе criminal district court of the parish committing him to an asylum as a dangerous insane person, secured his release from such custody through an
*369
original proceeding in
habeas corpus
in the court of appeal of the parish, which adjudged thаt he had recovered his sanity. He then called the attention of the Supreme Court to this judgment and insistеd that it was decisive of his sanity at a time subsequent to the judgment of interdiction and was
res judicata
of the issue, presented on the appeal. But the Supreme Court held that under the state constitution and statutes the court of appeal was without jurisdiction and therefore its judgment was no.t
res judicata.
In the assignments of error it is said of this ruling, first that it practically suspended the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
contrary to § 9 of Article I of the Constitutiоn of the United States, and, second, that it denied the plaintiff in error the due process and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it did not give proper effect to certain provisions of the constitution and statutes of the State bearing upon the jurisdiction of the cоurt of appeal and the Supreme Court. Both claims, in so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, are so obviously ill founded and so certainly foreclosed by prior decisions that they аfford no basis for invoking our jurisdiction. Section 9 of Article I, as has long been settled, is not restrictive of stаte, but only of national, action.
Munn
v.
Illinois,
Thе facts bearing upon- the remaining assignment are' as follows: After the judgment of affirmance by the Suprеme Court and during the pendency of á petition for rehearing, the plaintiff in error, claiming that upon his release from custody by habeas corpus he had removed to, and become a resident and citizen of, Shelby County, Tеnnessee, petitioned the probate court of that county for an inquisition respecting his sanity. The court entertained the petition and within a day or two rendered a '5‘tidgment thereon finding that the-plaintiff-in error had become a resident and citizen of Tennessee, adjudging that he was sane and ablе to control his person and property and declaring that any disability arising from the proceеdings in Louisiana was thereby removed. He then brought the proceedings in Tennessee — all certified сonformably to the law of Congress-r-to the attention of the Louisiana Supreme Court by a motion wherein he insisted that under the Constitution of the United States, Article IY, § 1, and the law passed by Congress to carry it into effect, Rev. Stats., § 905, the judgment in Tennessee was conclusive of his residence and citizenship in that State and of his sanity and ability to care for his person and property, and that in consequence the interdiction proceeding should be abated. But the motion was denied, along with the petition for a rehearing, and in the assignments of error it is said that in denying the motion the court declined to give the judgment in Tennessee the Ml faith and credit required by the Constitution and the law of Congress.
There are several reasons why this assignment affords
*371
no basis for a review hеre, but the statement of one will suffice. What the. Constitution and the congressional enactment require is that a judgment of a court of one State, if founded upon adequate jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, shall be given the same faith and credit in a court of another State that it has by lаw or usage in the courts of 'the State of its rendition. This presupposes that the law or usage in the lаtter State will be brought to the attention of the court in the other State by appropriate аllegation and proof, or in some other recognized mode; for the courts of one Statе are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws оr usage of another State.
Hanley
v.
Donoghue,
Writ of error dismissed..