*1 v. ATTEILL. HUNTINGTON Syllabus. record and the effect, that area is within consequent wharf call us consider. not to. does upon of the added that the decision
It Supreme may properly its relator was not entitled to that in indicates Court opinion he had other because remedies the writ prohibition, a This availed himself. was he have ground might of the de- to irrespective sustain judgment broad enough have arose; if such we cision Federal question, of the considered case other ruling aspect, is not defi- Court in this sufficiently regard perhaps, Supreme to decline nite us for jurisdiction upon ground.. justly, raised conclusion is that no Federal was so Our question n upon record as our and therefore this interposition, justify of error is the writ Dismissed. v. ATTRILL. THE OF STATE OF MARYLAND. THE OF APPEALS TO COURT ERROR Argued December 26, 1892.Decided April 12, 1892. No. 33. conveyance property equity a State to set aside made in in one A bill creditors, payment charge judgment it' a with' the of- fraud of aiyl plaintiff against the debtor another State recovered since State, corporation under in a a statute of that officer set aji his recovered; it of action on which and the cause and' forth the asserted, original-liability independently judgment, an also corporation in that and officer before the defendant as a con- stockholder veyance. highest declined entertain the court of the State bill The had judgment, been recovered in another virtue of the. because original penalty; the bill on for or to maintain in an action Held, question liability, whether due faith various reasons. question, thefeby was Federal and credit denied to the of error. of which had- writ court State, aspects may question some statute of one sense, penal, so that it called international cannot be is a law the depends .enforced the courts of another whether' justice purpose punish public State,' the. offence act; private remedy person injured wrongful or to afford a sign making corporation, A statute Officers of a who record a false
VOL. cxlvi—12 TERM,
Citations for Plaintiff in Error. liable, stock, capital debts, of'the amount of its certificate all its law the international sense. *2 a statute one is a State cannot be Whether law which enforced in is to be State determined the court another which is called it. enforce gire of a highest court State-declines full faith If the and credit to a State, opinion judgment because its of another was for determining penalty, full faith and credit have judgment, original been to that must decide for itself whether the cause of action international sense. money, If a for a fixed sum of recovered in one cred- corporation . one of its all itor officers ' debts, imposed by making recording arstatute State for .that stock, capital false -of the amount of its is sued on in a court certificate the-judgment of another and that court declines to enforce be- opinion original liability penaltj', judg- cause of its that the awas faith, thereby ment is denied full and effect to credit entitled under the Constitution and United States. bill was dismissed equity. the'Co'urt of Appeals In this writ of‘error Maryland,-to was sued which-judgment out.
’ n L. Mr. Jr. and Mr. Bond, John K. Cowen for- Hugh J, whom was Mr. error, E. D. on the Cross plaintiff (with cited: v. 5 Russell, Christmas Wall. 290; Dennic brief,) k 11; v. Railroad 103 S.U. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., Co., . ; 265; S 2 Morawetz on 127 908 et Corporations, seq. § U. Neal v. 12 104 v. Moultrie, ; 1 Georgia, Livingston Jefferson, Pittsburg 1 203; Brock. McKenna v. Fisk, 241; Allen v. How. 45Co., Railroad 41;
& Connellsville Maryland, Phillips L. R. B. 1; v. Mitchell v. 13 Eyre, How. Q. Harmony, 115; 6 Le v. Tolman, 109; Forest 117 Mass. v. Wabash Rail Boyce 70; 63 v. 4 Co., Iowa, Erickson way Nesmith, 233; Allen, Callender, Andrews v. 13 484; Pick. v. 12 Halsey McLean, 438 Allen, ; 157; S. C. 90 Am. Dec. Erickson v. Nesmith, 46 H.N. Flash 109 371; v. S. Richardson v. Conn, 371; U. N. Y. Central 98 Mass. v. Railroad, 85; Houseman, Claflin 93 U. S. 130; 188; Co. v. 101 U. S. Hubbard, Steam Engine Chase v. Curtis, 452; 113 Iron Co. 4 Pierce, Union v. U. S. Bissell, 327; v. 13 Co. Wall. Prescott Railway Whitton, 270; 4 1 Nevers, 326; Parrott v. 423; Mason, Barney, Sawyer, v. v. ATTEILL. |59
'
for Defendant
in Error.
Citations
S. C. 23 Am.
13 Pick.
v.
91;
761;
Dec.
Reed
Northfield,
S.
C.
18
36 Am. Dec.
v. York
Bank,
166;
Maine,
Palmer
Marsh,
186 Servis v.
;
2
Fed.
Steere
Field, Mason,
710;
38
v.
Read Chelms
301;
Price,
Wharton,
9
794; Stanley
v.
Rep.
v.
Bennett,
522;
3 Met.
128;
(Mass.)
Gray
16 Pick.
ford,
v.
Mass.
Hart,
v.
118
278;
12 Cush.
v. Clapp,
Mitchell
Daniels
Rousillon
Q.
L.
6
B.
139;
R.
Gray,
Godard
v.
Rou
543;
v.
Falconer
How, McLean,
White
291;
351;
D.
v.
11 Ch.
sillon,
Attrill,
McLean, 195; Hutington
C ampbell,
C. February 17, 1892).
(P.
Law Rep. 311
Times
Mr.
T. Wallis
S.
Fisher,
A.
whom was
Mr. William
[with
Wisconsin
in error cited:
defendant
brief,)
Evans
Co.,
Sprigg, Mary
Ins.
127 U. S.
Pelican
Nat. Bank
Price,
First
Maryland,
land, 157;
*3
Marrow v.
Hubbard,
Co. v.
188;
101 U. S.
Engine
Steam
Humes,
Missouri
Railway
129 U. S.
178;
Brinkley,
v.
Pacific
v. Cun-
Cole
Ball,
457;
121 U. S.
Boynton
512;
U. S.
115
v.
Opinion of the Court. Gray delivered court. Mr. Justice opinion 21, This was a bill March 1888, filed equity, Circuit Court of Baltimore Collis P. City, Huntington, Gas Com York, resident New against Equitable Light Baltimore, Maryland, pany corporation all Attrill, Y. his wife and three residents Henry daughters, to set a transfer stock aside Canada, company, fraud made him their benefit and in of his creditors, and to stock with the charge payment in the him State of recovered New by'the plaintiff against his as a director in a New York York, liability corpora under the statute of York of c. tion, 1875, New material of which are provisions copied margin.1 bill that on June 15, 1886, recov- alleged plaintiff ered, Court of the State of New York, Supreme him Attrill on March brought by any made, report public given, by Sec. If certificate or notice any corporation, repre the officers of such shall be false material sentation, all signed jointly the officers who shall have the same shall be severally corporation liable for all the debts of the contracted while they are officers thereof. liability companies, In limited Sue: all the stockholders shall be sev- erally individually company liable to the creditors of the in stockholders, equal to an amount to the amount of stock held them respectively, for all debts company, and contracts made such until the capital co'mpany whole amount stock fixed and limited has been in, paid and a certificate thereof has been made and recorded hereinafter prescribed. capital every . . The . stock of such limited com- in, pany paid one year shall half thereof one within other half *4 years incorporation company, thereof within from two the of said or such corporation every company, shall be dissolved. The directors of such thirty days payment capital after the of the of the last instalment Within stock, in, capital paid stating shall make certificate the amount of the so signed by president which certificate shall be and the and a ma- sworn shall, directors; jority thirty the days, of and within said record state, secretary same in the county officeof and of the which principal corporation business officeof such is situated. whatever, any corporation any Seo. 38. The dissolution for cause aforesaid, away impair remedy given created as any shall not take corporation, officers, such its stockholders or liabilities for previous incurred to its dissolution. -y.. ATTEILL.
Opinion of tie Court. had not been $100,240, paid,. the sum for judgment secured, action on which- the cause of and that satisfied; as On February. was that was recovered follows:. Lim- Company, Beach 29, Improvement 1880, Bockaway -director, and Attrill was an ited, of which incorporator awith York, under the law of New became a corporation 1880, 15, On June $700,000. plaintiff stock capital on to be of $100,000, that sum repaid lent company one of was elected Attrill 26, 1880, demand. On February office, and con- and the directors of the accepted company, 1881. On 29, a director until after tinued to act as January June. as director 30, 1880, company, signed Attrill, as to, recorded, made and caused to be by. oath required knew, he to be certificate, the law of New York, stock of the cor- the whole of the that false, capital stating ’ been no had whereas in truth in, had been part paid poration liable, became false certificate such in; paid by making of the all the company the law of New debts York, its debt before 29, 1881, including contracted January court 8, 1882, On March by proceedings plaintiff. insolvent and to be was New declared York, corporation A since and was dissolved.. 1880, duly to have been so July, that was record of annexed’ exemplified copy and made bill. part n at time of its dissolution The bill also alleged indebted to the arid..- the said aforesaid, company plaintiff assets; amount far excess of its to other creditors all tlfe stockholders law of the State of New York all éach to the liable to. its debts, pay company him, defendant, held Henry amount the stock said date and Y. liable .at April Attrill/was amount stockholder, $340,000, to the amount of dates- also both said severally stock held was on him, the false director, as a report liable having signed directly debts of said contracted above all the mentioned, company 29, 1881, which 1880, and January between February value of the the whole debts more than property aggregate owned Attrill.” said *5 . TERM,
Opinion of the Court. further that Attrill wás.in The bill alleged March, 1882? remained, ever since and had liable individually large and above the debts which he amount over was liable as in the and and director that he stockholder company; and and had secreted concealed all his insolvent, property his creditors. of the purpose defrauding that in The bill then Attrill April, alleged acquired of stock in the Gas amount Equitable Light Company large forthwith transferred into his Baltimore, and own name stock, as trustee for wife 1000 shares and as his trustee three for each of his 250 shares with- daughters same, and consideration, out valuable with intent to hinder delay, creditors, and defraud his and with the intent to especially hinder and defraud this his lawful delay, suits, plaintiff of. debts and demands Attrill, out damages, against arising cause of action on which the aforesaid was recov- out of ered, and ilhe claim him as a stock- plaintiff’s against holder; that the and June, 1880, ever since was plaintiff and resident in domiciled the State of New and York, that from December Attrill February, 6, 1881, was domi- ciled and resident in that. and his transfers stock tjfat were made in of New York company where gas the"city office of then was, where all principal company its transfers stock were made; those transfers were, York, laws New as well as those Mary- land, fraudulent void as Attrill, creditors of the creditors of the including and were Kockaway Company, fraudulent void' as plaintiff.
The bill further, distinct that those allegations; .averred transfers, unless set aside and annulled á"court of equity, would of all deprive his plaintiff interests rights sort therein, which he was every entitled as a creditor of at Attrill time when those fraudulent transfers were and the said made; fraudulent transfers were wholly without legal consideration, were fraudulent and void, and bo should set aside a court of equity.”.
The bill that the prayed transfer of shares in the com- gas b'e fraudulent and pany void, and declared executed for the ATTRILL.
Opinion Court. of the his claim as out of the existing of defrauding plaintiff purpose in name of those shares the of the certificates that creditor; into court and can- ordered to be be brought Attrill trustee to the “be decreed to be the shares subject celled and that ; aforesaid,” and to be on the claim of this plaintiff and new court, the certificates- sold a trustee appointed and for further issued purchasers; gas company relief. it, -demurred to because bill,
One of daughters was for the claim showed that recovery plaintiff’s of under a statute Attrill State of arising penalty it did not state a case because which entitled York, and New in of in relief a court the State of any equity plaintiff Maryland. it was cause, a of filed counsel,
By stipulation agreed, of-the the bill demurrer, for the should that, purposes treated as the New York statute June 21, embodying that the Beach ; and Rockaway Improvement Company, under the of that was Limited, provisions statute. incorporated The Court of Baltimore overruled the demurrer. Circuit City of the State On Court Maryland, appeal Appeals bill dismissed. order was and the reversed, Maryland, most forward most brought and ground prominently discussed in fully Opinion majority was that delivered by liability Judge Bryan, imposed by' York 21 of the statute of New officers a cor- section condition, certificate of its was for false poration, making whether a had creditor debts, all its without been inquiring to lend his or to and induced deceived ’money deception he loss to had incurred extent credit, whether any give of the corporation pay, the inability without-limiting' and was sustained, to the amount loss -intended the recovery acts, was, of the forbidden as a doing punishment in in State and of the decisions in view Mary- therefore, .that in enforced which could not be land, State.of penalty obtained New York.for- that the Maryland; “ cause action so while it original merged penalty, it,” maintained and is also cannot again suit TERM, Opinion Court. of its evidence existence conclusive form and under stated in the did the circumstances pleadings,” yet change but, within the transaction, the nature decision of this Pelican Ins. court Wisconsin U. Co., 127 S. and real foundation” nature the 'same
its “essential as the action, therefore a cause suit could not be original the limits of the judgment beyond maintained upon n rendered, it was. 193--198. State which pp.
The court then took the clause of the1 above bill, up quoted, which was Attrill as liable sought charge originally under the statute of New both York, stockholder and as as/a director; “this is asserted to observing- *7 the exist independently judgment,” summarily disposed that it could it, not attach to him a stock- upon grounds because he had not been holder, sued, as the New required by within after statute, York two debt years became plaintiff’s “ nor as a due; director, because the Attrill judgment against for made the false all having report of. certainly merges right ” him on this account; that, if he liable “ at and the times mentioned in this clause of grounds was barred bill,” liability statute of limitations 198, 199. Maryland, pp. thus decided
Having claim under his against’ plaintiff’s that it judgment, upon single was for a ground penalty under the statute of New and York, therefore could not be enforced in Maryland; against any original under-the for statute, various reasons the concluded: ; opinion “ whole, Upon to us that the appears has no complainant cause of action, he can maintain in this State.” p. Stone, whom
Judge .with dis- concurred, Judge McSherry sented from the of the opinion majority upon that it did ground due effect to the act Con- give in gress, passed pursuance the Constitution of United States, that the records of rendered providing judgments a court of shall State have such any faith and credit given to them in court within the United have every States as they by law in the courts of the State whence usage taken. Act of c. Stat. Eev. Stat. May ATTRILU.
Opinion Court. “I his look 905. Hé opinion by saying: began § and am as Federal governed-in question, principal point my of the decisions of the views more understanding my States than the decisions of of the United Court Supreme he' concluded thus: I think the And the state courts.” to confine the in U. meant S., Court, operation Supreme no will execute the laws of the rule that country It as are classed criminal. another to such laws properly brief criminal law. definition is'not very easy give in all breaches that, It say general, ihay enough perhaps no an individual that confer rights upon person, duty are in their alone can take of, and which cognizance that all such within the rule. But nature come criminal, at same time while confer which, duty, imposing to claim for thé citizens damages nonperform- right of the latter If all the laws are not criminal. ance, descrip- held that clause .the criminal, tion are the sense of is' of to records Constitution relates judgments ais little value. There constantly large, comparatively one sense be termed number of cases that may increasing, criminal. in no sense be classed as but can' Examples penal, for be found suits for these damages may negligence n for double stock death, -injury causing damages state where railroads have .laws fencing neglected *8 of their of- officers tracks, and the corporations of their the debts of the reason neglect by company think that I cannot statute. judg- duty by plain imposed the such claims not within protection by ments on I the the of the States. Constitution United therefore4ihink 2*00-205. order in this be affirmed.” case should pp. and allowed'
A writ sued out the of error was by plaintiff, of of Maryland, of Court Chief Justice Appeals by “ is the high- that the said Court of Appeals ground in which of of law or the State Maryland, court equity est a in said suit a had; suit that could be said decision the Constitution under are claimed and and right privilege decision is States, against of the United statutes and .petitioner and claimed by your and set up right privilege 1892. TERM. Opinion of the Court. under statutes-; said and and that suit in said Constitution there is drawn in the' of a statute of question- validity and an exercised under- the United authority States, decision is such statute and validity authority.”
It thus that recovered in New York appears the judgment was made the foremost discussed bill, was ground fully Court distinctly passed 'upon by majority of the dissent- Maryland, Appeals only subject and that the without ing, opinion; considering of the transfers as fraudulent was validity impeached the law of New the law of by York, governed by Mary- ; land and without those transfers, suggestion alleged to have been made Attrill intent with delay, hinder-and. defraud all his were not creditors, voidable by subsequent, well as creditors, or avoided by existing they could under the recovered .by 'plaintiff, claiming judgment him Attrill after those declined made;' transfers were to maintain his so do virtue of that right judgment, because the court been had, held, simply recovered in an another penalty. The whether due faith and credit were thereby denied to the rendered another State is a Federal of which this court has writ question, on this error. Green v. Van Buskirk, Wall. 307, 311; Crapo 610, 619; Wall. Kelly, Rochereau, 21 Wall. Dupasseur 130, 134; Crescent Co. v. Butchers’ City 120 U. S. Union, 141, Cole 133 U. S. Cunningham, 107; Carpenter 111 U. S. Strange, In order to
. determine this it will be question, necessary, in. consider the place, true first scope meaning fundamental maxim of international law, stated Chief Jus tice Marshall in the fewest no words: courts of possible execute the country another.” The Antelope, . . 10 Wheat In there is maxim,- -interpreting misled being different danger shades meaning - to the word -allowed in our “penal” language. .In.-the" law of municipal the words' *9 England America, v. ATTRILL.
Opinion of the Court. been used various have and senses. “penalty” “penal” denote whether cor they Strictly punishment, primarily, and enforced the for a State, poral imposed pecuniary, its laws. United States v. crime or offence against Reisinger, v. 603, 102 U. S. 402; Chouteau, S. United States 398, U. (cid:127) used 611. But' are also commonly including the law subjects extraordinary wrongdoer in favor of the not limited the person wronged, damages so elastic as even to famil suffered. They meaning contracts, to cases of iarly wholly applied private independent ” ” “ “ sum as when we statutes, speak penalty penal In the words of Chief Justice Marshall: bond. In gen-' to be eral, a sum money gross, paid non-perform is of an considered as a ance penalty, legal agreement, of which is to cover the which the damages party, operation' made, in whose favor have sustained stipulation may from the breach of contract Tayloe party.” opposite Wheat. 13, 17. Sandiford, are those laws,
Penal strictly properly, punish- imposing which, committed ment for an offence against executive constitutions, American English Statutes private- has the pardon. giving power are sometimes of as spoken the wrongdoer action against been out but in such cases has nature, pointed in their nor the remedy the liability that néither imposed strictly penal. hundred of an owner
The action
property
mob was said
Justices Willes
caused by
recover damages
hundred,
certainly
Buffer to be
“penal
Cogan,
Doug.
Hyde
remedial as
sufferer.”
to recover back money
A statute
right
giving
within a
not sue
certain
if
loser does
and,
lost at gaming,
other
to be
by any
tarn action
brought
time, authorizing qui
held to
remedial
has been
amount,
for threefold
person
the suit
loser,
common
regards
as to
though
Pate, 2
Booth,
1226;
2 W. Bl.
Brandon
informer Bones
Allen,
Stewart,
Read v.
563;
H. Bl.
Grace
M'Elroy,
As said
Opinion of Court. of crimes and harsher appellation distinguished by 3 Bl. Com. 2.
misdemeanors" have no force of themselves Laws beyond and can have extra-territorial of the State which enacts them, rules of other States. comity general only by effect well summed international comity subject De the American Chief Justice Revolution, before Grey, up, in their William Bláckstone: “Crimes are Sir reported *11 And and the of crimes is local. so local, nature fixed-and real as to the subject property, being rights are of a nature, But transitory immovable. personal injuries rei.” 2 W. Bl. Verelst, sequuntur forwn Rafael 1058. the laws of State can and offences any only Crimes author- be defined, sovereign prosecuted pardoned or and the executive authorities, State; legislative,' ity with them, other take no action States regard judicial, of extradition surrender offenders to by way- except and whose violated, have they State whose they peace have broken. to land the title must in rem to determine
Proceedings within -whoseborders the be in the State necessarily brought and officers alone'-can and whose courts situated, land put to recover Whether actions pecuniary party possession. “ of which the as estate, causes,” to real damages fortrespasses 3d Intel-national ed. Law, Westlake observed Mr. (Private elsewhere than where have occurred could not they p. 213), abroad, be local, did- are occur,” may brought purely are viewed as relat they question depends estate, real affording personal remedy. to the only ing most of the common law of adopted,in England, By local, actions Union, are-regarded States situated. Doulson v. the land is where can- be only brought 1 How. Fisk, T. McKenna Matthews, R. as transi countries regarded
But
some States
action for
and whether an
actions;
like other
tory,
personal
in another State
in one
can
land
brought
trespass
the„.Jafctfin_Statetakes of the
on the view which
depends
TERM, the Opinion
Court.
instance,
For
Chief Justice
nature
the action.
Marshall
held that an action could not be maintained Virginia, by
to land in
whose law it was
for !a
local,
New Orleans.
trespass
(cid:127) what are to be considered Upon laws of. penal within the international rule country, which forbids such one be enforced in to other any so much reliance country, ATTRILL.
Opinion of the Court. each, was party upon, opinion placed by argument U. S. Co., v. Pelican Ins. this court Wisconsin from, it be'convenient opinion will quote affirmed: there principal propositions The rule that the courts no execute country of another not sentences .laws prosecutions applies only suits in favor of misdemeanors, all for crimes for the violation any State recovery penalties pecuniary muni- revenue, for the of its or other of statutes protection 290. and to for such laws, all-judgments penalties.” p. cipal “The the rule to the courts of the several application and of the United States not affected States pro- and of act visions of the Constitution by. Congress, which of the courts of State are to have any judgments faith and them in court within credit every in the United have law State in States they usage were rendered.” p. “The and real foundation of a cause essential nature it; action are changed by recovering judgment upon technical claim as rules, regard original merged n and the judgment promise judgment, implying a court., do not to which a the defendant it, pay preclude action, for affirmative cannot (while presented into behind the for the purpose go examining the claim is from validity claim,) ascertaining one of such a nature that the court is authorized to really enforce it.” pp. “ The which the State Wisconsin, statute under recovered now and here sued on, in one of her own courts the judgment statute, the strictest sense a imposing penalty business insurance of another doing company with the the State of Wisconsin without having deposited officer of the a full statement proper property of action was business The cause during previous year. *13 committed the offence solely private injury, The State her law. against*the by violating prosecution and the whole when recov- State, in name penalty, apcrue would To the ered, State.” p.
672 OCTOBER TERM, 1892.
Opinion of the Court.
it
Such
which was
in
.
grounds upon
adjudged
that this
under the
case
the Constitution
provision
of actions between a State and
giving
original jurisdiction
of another
had no
State,
citizens
of an action
a
jurisdiction
a
recovered
it in
State
one of its own
courts
upon judgment
a citizen or
a
another State for a
corporation
pecu-
for a
violation
law.
niary penalty
municipal
similar
the courts of a
cannot be
State
com
Upon
grounds,
to take
of a suit to recover a like
pelled
penalty
for a violation of a law of the United States. Martin v.
Wheat.
330, 337; United States v.
Hunter,
1
Lathrop,
17
v.
4, 265;
Illinois,
Johns.
2 Hill
(N. Y.)
169;
Delafield
v.
Rose,
Peck,
Jackson
Cas.
v.
Conn.
34; Ely
239;
Virg.
2
7
Davison
7 Conn.
1 Dana,
Champlin,
Haney
Sharp,
244;
Pike,
State v.
N.
H.
Ward
Jenkins,
1 Kent
Met.
Com. 402-404. ever
only ground
583, 587;
such suits in a state
is that
court
maintaining
suggested
in
of the United
laws
States
effect
of each State.
Houseman,
93 U. S. 130, 137;
Platt, J., United
Claflin
States
Johns. 22; Ordway v. General
Lathrop,
Bank,
But in
v. Houseman
Maryland,
point
Glaflm
was that an
under the
law of the
adjudged
assignee
bankrupt
United States could assert-in a state court the title
vested
him the
and Mr.
Justice Brad
assignment
bankruptcy;
who delivered
that case, said the
ley,
opinion
year,
when
Circuit
before,
Court, and
sitting
a
speaking
in a court of the
com
prosecution
Georgia
perjury
mitted in that State
a
testifying before commissioner
Court of-
Circuit
the United
It
States,
would be manifest
for one
for an
incongruity
sovereignty
punish
person
committed
the laws of
offence
another
sovereignty.”
Ex
130. See also
Woods, 428,
case,
Loney's
parte Bridges,
Beyond from state (except in obedience to an act in -order to express Congress protect under the Constitution and laws of the United rights States;) Court of the- Circuit United States cannot entertain juris- diction of suit in behalf of the or of the thereof, people *14 v. ATTRILL. 673
Opinion Court. for a vio to recover by way punishment pénalty imposed State, of the “the courts of United lation a statute Mr. Justice as observed Catron, delivering States,” by judg of this no to execute the ment “having power How. Breedlove, 2 the individual States.” v. Gwin &c. v. Barton, 7; Gwin v. 6 Iowa 29, 37; Chicago How. 36, Ross, 38 Fed. 497; Fed. v. 37 Railway, Rep. Ferguson Rep. 41 Co., 228; Texas v. Land & Cattle Fed. 161; Day Rep. v. 45 Fed. 82. &c. Dey Railway, Chicago Rep. well
For the
it
extra-territorial
purposes
jurisdiction, may
called,
be that actions
common
as Blackstone
informer,
by
are
actions, because
says, popular
they
people
for an
recover a
statute
general,”
penalty imposed
offence
law,
be barred
par
may
the same
don
before action
on
.stand
may
granted
brought,
name of the
as suits
for such a
ground
brought
penalty
State or of its
because
officers,
equally brought
162;
the criminal
3 Bl.
161,
enforce
law the State.
Com.
336
437,
Cranch,
2 Bl.
2
Gwin
438;
Woods,
;
Com.
Adams v.
138 U. S.
Connor,
v.
above
v.
Breedlove,
cited; United States
dis
61,
And
Ela,
v.
Smith
396.
66; Bryant
(N. H.)
personal
as an incident or
abilities
of a State,
law
imposed
or decree,
pun
of a
sentence
by way
consequence
judicial
the benefit of
other
ishment of an
and not for
offender,
attainder, or
infamy,
incompetency
person—such
to a
convict
guilty party
testify,
disqualification
—
cause,
are doubtless
divorce for
marry
adultery
again
no extra-territorial
have
opera
and therefore
strictly penal,
Domicil,
on
tion.
of Laws,
92; Dicey
Conflict
Story
§§
and 3 T. R.
162;
726; Logan
v.
Folliott
H. Bl.
Ogden,
Dickson, 1
Dickson v.
263, 303;
United
S.U.
States,
Blatchford, 15;
Comm
Johnson,
Yerger,
Ponsford
onwealth
Van Voorhis
113 Mass.
Lane,
Brintnall,
aspects may penal, of another sense, so that in the courts cannot be enforced is to State, depends purpose VOL. CXLYI—43 TERM,
Opinion of Court. an offence or to public justice punish to a remedy injured afford a private person wrongful could be no better illustration .of There this than the act. Co., Dennick Railroad S. 11. decision of U. court it was held virtue of a statute of that, In that New case, *15 a or whose act, -Jersey making person corporation, wrongful or default should cause the death of liable any person, neglect his for the widow administrator, to an action benefit of his by to recover kin, and next damages 'pecuniary injury to them from his death, action, such an resulting where death and the took New place Jersey, might, upon neglect be maintained in a Circuit law, Court of general principles held in the United States the State' of New York administrator of in that State. deceased, appointed Miller, Mr. Justice said: “It can delivering judgment, be contended that the act class of crimi- scarcely belongs enforced nal laws which be courts the State can‘only committed, offence was for it a is, where the though statutory civil action recover for a civil remedy, damages injury. is, indeed, It on the statute of the right dependent solely but when the act is done for State; which the sáys the. .law shall be and the action liable, which the person remedy is. and not to be enforced a real action, and is personal .a which the that character law as and not recognizes transitory see local, we cannot defendant why be held liable may to whose court he can be any jurisdiction subjected by per- sonal or was the as case process here. voluntary appearance, It to understand is difficult how the nature of the remedy, -of the courts to enforce is in jurisdiction it, manner any on the whether it is a dependent question statutory right ’ common law Wherever, either the common law or right.. law of a the statute State, has action become fixed right n anda incurred, be legal liability enforced liability may of action right court has pursued juris- diction of matters and can obtain par- ties.” U. S. That decision is two important establishing points: “
1st. The court considered criminal that is to laws,” say, v. ATTRILL.
Opinion Court. the whole class of lawn crimes, constituting punishing A statute of enforced 2d. extra-territorially. which cannot and to life, intended to impose.a a protect manifestly death, civil those causing new extraordinary liability upon for the dam them to a private pecuniary by subjecting deceased, resulting family might thereby ages held another Court of States enforced in Circuit the United a similar State, without regard The for a cause- that State. have attached similar would last term in Texas and followed at the decision was approved where S. the Chief Cox, U. & Railway Pacific after to cases for the whole Justice, alluding speaking of both the rule where the laws jurisdictions recognizing one of however, law, said: similar, general question, in Dennick v. Railroad Co.” as settled and we regard followed in the courts of has been also several That decision & St. Louis Herrick Railway, States. Minneapolis &c. Railroad Minnesota, 11; Chicago Doyle, Mississippi, *16 108 Penn. St. Railroad, v. West Jersey 977; Knight Iowa, &c. Missouri Railway, Morris Chicago v. Cen Nebraska, 848; Lewis, Higgins Railway Pacific 155 Mass. Railroad, 176. tral New England In last a statute Connecticut cited, the case having pro- to those vided that all actions including injuries person, death, should survive; or otherwise instantaneously resulting from death that for an negligence injury resulting the deceased maintain administrator of executor or might not to be distrib- $5000, recover action to damages exceeding it in certain and heirs uted his widow proportions; among action, a was not an action penal might held that such an adminis- that statute Massachusetts under maintained who thereof, citizen had been of a there, trator, appointed of, a railroad in Connecticut .by killed negligence instantly to the case and the applicable principles general corporation; “These as follows: principles require stated carefully if actions, law, other than foreign that, cases or to abstract or justice our pure to policy, public contrary its the State of shall citizens, or injure calculated morals, TEEM, OCTOBEB Opinion of tlie Court. and enforced here, we have recognized .if óf jurisdiction all and if we can see that, necessary parties, with our consistently forms of own and law of trials, we can do procedure substan- between If the justice parties. tial law is a foreign or if it our offends own statute, or policy, repugnant jus- morals, tice is calculated to this State or good its injure or if '..citizens, we have not who must be parties in to enable us to or if brought give satisfactory under remedy, our forms of an action here cannot a substantial procedure givé are at we to decline remedy, liberty Mass. jurisdiction.” of the statute of now in York, New provision question, the officers of a who and record making corporation, sign certificate of the amount of false its stock, liable for all capital is in no sense a its criminal or' debts, criminal law. The quasi while enables with statute, persons complying provisions do business as without corporation, being subject takes to secure liability partners, general pains maintain fund of the corporate proper payment debts. corporate aim, it With this makes the stockholders liable for individually debts of the until corporation stock is capital paid certificate made payment officers; the officers liable for makes false and material representa- tion in that certificate. The individual the stock- liability holders takes fund, until that fund place corporate has created; and the been individual duly officers fund, takes the case their statement that it-has place been created is false. If the officers do not duly state truly and record facts which them from exempt liability, they liable made directly creditor of the who every company, of their reason acts has not the for the wrongful security, of his debt out of the payment corporate property, *17 the;státute he a had As- a burdensome rely. imposes right on the for their it act, officers well be may wrongful considered in .the sense that it con- should penal, strictly strued. But itas a civil at the suit of gives private remedy, the it debt, creditor measured the amount'of his only, -by him is as to To a suit is not maintain such clearly remedial.. (cid:127)to a an offender administer against- punishment ^imposed v. ATTEILL.
Opinion of the Court. secured under to enforce private right but simply the can,see no We just ground, prin- individual. an its laws law, to be a sense a statute such for holding ciple, or state enforced country. foreign it cannot of so York, New of the Court Appeals decisions The to our fall short of hold- notice, have been brought far as they of the the officers corpora- that the liability imposed ing which cannot is a statutes penalty punishment tion by in another State. be enforced held that the statute was so Howe, the court Garrison
In and therefore the it construed that must be strictly, far penal of the with debt could not be corporation, officers charged a default in nor neither contracted during existing statute; and Chief Justice the the required by making report the statute were said: “If Denio, delivering judgment, the it be said that one, plaintiff’s a remedial might simply law for the within object case was equity; general beside was, duty making reports doubtless enforcing enable benefit all concerned, parties for the proposing could do to see'whether with safely deal corporation “ is rules law so.” provision highly penal, But us to it construction to cases not extend do permit 465, 466. N. Y. 458, within fairly language.” held that it was officers Barlow, In Jones v. accordingly which a due, for debts actually pres- liable only and the ent corporation; actio'n exists against right is wholly court said: obligation statutory, Although substance, as.it is form, to be a adjudged penalty, of the debts. The act collection corporate remedy trustees, but is remedial in defaulting against trustees is The liability, favor- of creditors. defaulting of the and a measured company, discharge obligation release of debt, company, obligations bars the trustees.” 62 N. Y. the action in that cited in the of the Court other cases opinion case, Appeals Maryland present only adjudged Within the limita- statute of following points: meaning tions actions only, applicable private
678 TERM, 1892.
Opinion of the Court.
“
a
created
officer
liability
by statute, other than
.not
a
forfeiture,”
which would be barred in six
penalty
years,
“
in three
but is barred
an action
a
years
statute for
a
or forfeiture where action is
penalty
party
because
said
provisions
aggrieved,”
question,
that nature.”
Merchants'
“impose penalty,
Bliss,
In
later case than
the court, in
affirming
now sued
on,
the statute of
very judgment
adjudging
valid,
constitutional and
said
1875
that “while liability
within the
is in some sense
in its
provision
it
have been
character,
intended for the
'may
protection
creditors of
created
to that
corporations.
statute.”
pursuant
Attrill,
We do not refer to these decisions as evidence in this case of the law of New York, because courts . Maryland that law could as a fact, only proved hardly open on the if demurrer, and, in' those proof courts, proved could not be taken notice of on this judicial court writ of error. & Hanley 1; U. S. Donoghue, Chicago Alton Railroad Wiggins 119 U. S. Ferry, Wernwag Gill & Johns. Pawling, Coates v. Mackey, ATTKILL..
Opinion of the Court. *19 for be Nor, reasons to stated presently, 416, Maryland, as in decisions, view, regarded concluding could' those this the courts Maryland, question law in the international sense. is a this statute penal made consideration, because entitled great they But terms of a statute authority, a court construing high it is familiar; with which it was satisfactory peculiarly that court with the inconsistent view find no adjudication in take of liability which we question. that others, indeed, have held
That court some a far in the under such statute is so nature officers liability have no that' the creditors corporation penalty, which cannot be taken away therein, by repeal vested right in an action of the statute before brought thereon. Hun, 48; N. Y. 26 Union 651, 97 Beecher, v.Co. Victory v. 327; Lindauer, 4 37 Bissell, v. Pierce, Breitung Iron Co. Colorado, 3 Bank, v. German 230; 217, Gregory Michigan, within whether, whether that decision so, 332. But 23, v. 2 Wall. court in Hawthorne Calef, this which the creditor had when his so affects security repeal of his as to con contracted, was debt impair obligation from is aside now tract with the corporation, the.question before us. States, courts of some
It true that the Mary- including a similar have declined to enforce liability imposed by land, But, in each of those cases,-it of another State. the statute a sufficient assumed to have been ground appears was not founded in contract, that conclusion, liability that statute; in the nature of imposed by was penalty the statute law- were considering no reasons and international sense. Derrickson v. strict, primary v. 12 166; McLean, J. (27 Halsey 3 Dutcher N. Law), Smith, v. 33 Price, Bank National Allen, Maryland, First v. Steam Co. 101 Hubbard, also true that Engine It is referred to those cases Mr. Justice Clifford 188, 192, U. S. well case, that as Chase v. But way .argument. S. was Curtis, 113 U. only point adjudged must be so construed far penal such statutes TERM, 1892. Opinion of the Court. botii cases was assumed strictly; tbe Circuit Court of the United and not States, doubted this if court, which could have been the statute had hardly been deemed within the maxim of international law. In Conn, Flash U. S. to be liability sought enforced under the statute of New York was the liability contract; stockholder and no arising upon the nature of of officers. presented liability coprt But in S. 228, Hornor v. U. declined Henning, consider a similar officers of a corporation the District of Columbia as a See also Neal Moul penalty. trie, Vermont, 632, Georgia, Cady Sanford, 118 Mass. Wheeler, 295, 298; Nickerson 639, 640; Post *20 Railroad, 144 Mass. Toledo &c. Woolverton on Morawetz Illinois, 197; (2d Taylor, Corporations ed.) § The case Missouri Humes, U. S. Railway Pacific which the defendant much relied, related to the only - of the of a State to
authority railroad legislature compel fences and corpoi’ations, neglecting provide cattle-guards on the of their lines roads, to double pay damages of cattle owners reason of the no injured by neglect; (the of the courts another State to question an action maintain for such in was involved the case, damages or in counsel, the mind of by the court. suggested limits The true of the international rule are well stated in the decision Judicial Committee of the Council Privy an from Canada, in an England, upon appeal action brought by Attrill in present plaintiff against Province of Ontario upon enforce which the judgment suit present The Canadian brought. in evidence before judges, having some of the in them cases the Court of of New York, Appeals above referred to, as well as the knoWn well testimony of New York that such statutes and had been lawyer were, held that court to be, differed strictly penal punitive, upon whether the statute of New York opinion question was a law which could not be enforced another coun- well as try, whether view taken v. ATTRILL.
Opinion of the. Court. conclusive should be upon foreign York of New courts Huntington for the defendant. courts, finally gave and Ontario Ontario, 245, App. Attrill, for Lord Watson, Lord Council, speaking In Privy for as well as himself, and other Halsbury judges, Chancellor below, in favor of an reversing.the delivered opinion that a decree for ground and entering appellant, law, international in the sense of' not, action was penal, on behalf words, government other or, of an New York the State of punishment community that The fact that their law.” offence municipal opin- acces- found readily ion has not been series reports any in 8 Times Law in this Reports, sible country, only affords, reasons for some passages. quoting special Lord “had law, Watson, rule” of international said
“The that in the well crimes, foundation its recognized principle term all breaches of law punishable public including at the instance of the state otherwise, mulct or pecuniary were local or of some one representing public, government, in this sense, they only punishable cognizable in the where were committed. no Accordingly country which had for of a civil its suit, even shape proceeding, or in- enforcement the State, directly object such breaches lex imposed directly, punishment other the courts' loci, country. ought be^admitted ’ ‘ In the word embrace penal might ordinary acceptation, *21 law, which did not consti- for of infractions general penalties tute many offences State; might, legal pur- against created be. with penalties poses, perfect propriety applied itself, failed to when taken contract; it, therefore, and criminal mark distinction civil between wrongs, rights (cid:127) rule.” of the international which was very essence After in of Judicial Commit that, the opinion observing from v. Pelican the first Wisconsin tee, above passage quoted test Co., 265, 290, Ins. U. S. “disclosed proper an within the whether action was meaning- penal ascertaining in to come order of the he added: “A rule,” proceeding, of a in in the nature suit of must be rule, within the scope TERM, 1892. Opinion Court. favor of the whose had been State law All the infringed. statutes for the of trade and provisions municipal- regulation in enacted the interest trading companies presumably and for the benefit of the at community large; persons were, who violated those in a certain sense, offend- provisions ers the state law as well as individuals who But' be their misconduct. tribunals might foreign injured not did. those law violations of statute as offences regard State, unless their vindication with the agáinst rested (cid:127) or itself with which it Pen- community represented. alties attached but that them, circumstance would might not' them within the in where rule, cases those bring except were recoverable at the or instance penalties an behalf, official authorized to its duly prosecute common, member in the character of a informer. public An action the latter was as an actio popularía regarded not in his individual in the pursued, interest, but interest the whole community.” He had in an earlier of the observed: already, part opinion,
“ Their could not assent that, lordships proposition whether the action was in such considering present (cid:127) as to oust their the courts of Ontario were jurisdiction, sense bound to absolute deference to pay any interpretation have been might statute the State put upon New York. had to construe and They international apply rule, which was a matter of law within the entirely cognizance court whose was invoked. foreign Judicial decisions the State where the cause of action arose were which must be precedents followed, -reason- although were founded must care- ing upon receive always consideration and ful be conclusive. The court might appealed first, to must determine for itself, substance place, right enforced, second sought and,' place, its enforcement would, indirectly, either directly Were, (cid:127)involve execution of the law of another State. other find principle decision, a court might guide itself in the case, effect one position denying giving in another, effect to suits of the same character, consequence *22 ATTEIEL;
Opinion oí ttiefCourt. countries; in different of action the causes having'arisen to effect to laws constrained give in the being predicament ih own which its were, judgment, strictly penal.” not one of but local, that In this view is. questiori is not The test what we concur. by international lawr, fully or the courts is name the statute called by legislature whether it it was State in appears passed, it to be, enforce in its es- is the tribunal which called'upon of an offence effect, sential character punishment to a or a of a civil right private person. giant public, law must óf international In' this country, question court, state national, in the first instance determined by ' is in Cir is If the suit which the suit brought brought. one of Court the United is those States, cuit questions must decide for court itself, jurisprudence general local 107 U. S. Uncontrolled decisions. Burgess Seligman, 145 U. Cox, & S. 593, 605, Texas 20, 33; Railway Pacific under the stat above If a suit liability cited. original of another is a court State, ute of one State brought of the United riot authorized Constitutionand laws StatesChave be reviewed this decision court. ;286 Hendren, Ehman, New Ins. Co.v. 92 U. S. Roth v. York if 319. But has into U. S. original passed inv the courts of another State, State, one when asked' boqnd aré Constitution and it, enforce States to full faith and credit United judgment, give their said this not,' decision, and if do at outset of this be reviewed and reversed court on writ opinion, may n essential nature and real error. The foundation cause are not indeed, of action, changed recovering judgment it. This was Wisconsin v. Pelican directly adjudged in the above cited. The difference Co., only Ins. appellate tliis court in the one case or other. State, in one If a suit -to enforce rendered nature of the which has not liability, essential changed in order to in the courts another brought court of error, on writ of determine, highest has full faith latter State credit judgment, *23 TERM, 1892.
Opinion of the Court. for itself whether determine the must cause of action original the international sense. The case, this is regard, the of to one under clause the Constitution' analogous' arising to law forbids a State the pass any obliga impairing if contracts, which, tion óf court of a highest State decides but the construction and nothing original obligation this'court has no contract, of a to its review deci if state court to effect ; sion gives law, subsequent as impugned impairing obligation contract, has in order to this court determine con power, whether'any has been to tract decide itself what the true impaired, of contract is. construction New Orleans Waterworks v. 125 U. S. 38. So if Co., Louisiana the state Sugar court, in an to enforce under the law of liability original State, another nature of that and passes upon cannot; this court else, review its decisionbut- if the nothing state court declines to full faith credit and to give another because its as to the nature of opinion n cause"of action on which the this recovered, full credit faith and have been determining whether to that must decide for the nature of itself given judgment, the original liability.
Whether the Court of full faith Maryland Appeals gave and credit to the in New judgment recovered'by plaintiff York true depends construction"of the updn provisions the Constitution and of the act of. Congress upon subject, Constitution, i provision is as Full faith follows: and credit shall be in each given acts, State public and records And judicial other State. every proceedings the' manner in Congress may by general prescribe which such acts,-records and shall proceedings proved, be. ’ the effect thereof.” Artr sect. 1. clause,
This like Constitution', the less perfect pro- vision in subject Confederation, Articles Mr. Justice observed.by “was intended to Story, giye same' conclusive effect'to so as to States, of all the judgments as well rule' promote uniformity, among certainty, .had them-;?5 three' distinct declare, first, objects: v. ATTÉILL. 6S5
Opinion-of the Court. full faith and force credit should be establish, own. other State; second, every .judgments' the manner of authorize prescribe Congress authenticating to authorize third, their them; Congress prescribe authenticated. on the effect when so Story Constitution, §§ in the exercise of the so conferred, besides Congress, power in which the manner the records judicial pro- prescribing has defined authenticated, may ceedings *24 “ the' said records and thereof, effect that by enacting judicial shall have such faith and credit authenticated, so proceedings, in to them court within United States, every 'or in the courts of the from have State usage they }aw 905, are taken.” Rev. Stat. Act which they reenacting § c. 122. 26, Stat. 1790, 11, May
These of the Constitution and laws of United provisions be estab are read .in some States light necessarily intended lished were not to overthrow. which they principles; of a court which had no no effect They give judgments or of the of .the D'Arcy parties. subject-matter jurisdiction v. 18 Wall. Whitman, 11 How. Ketchum, Thompson . on the courts of confer no new And 457 they do not them to take and therefore authorize State; juris any nature, such a that diction of suit prosecution law, and international on rules settled cannot, public than in State that entertained any,other judiciary v. Pelican Ins. Wisconsin which the was incurred. penalty cited. Co., above ' of other States do these Nor put judgments provisions to be enforced by of domestic judgments, footing in which manner they may execution leave ; they on, in which sued the Staté they enforced to.-.the law of 13 Pet. Cohen, McElmoyle evidence. pleaded, offered ain court of 325. But when proved duly pleaded not that merely prima have the effect they being of'-the thereby but conclusive rights evidence, proof, facie and effect, them the force and a refusal adjudicated; give which they in the State had respect, TERM, Puller, Dissenting Opinion: C.J. denies to secured rendered, to him right party and laws of the United States.
the Constitution
Christmas
290 Green v. Van
;
Buskirk,
Wall.
Wall.
Russell,
Harris,
Wall.
Insurance Co.
York, now want impugned any juris- question, diction in that court. The statute under which that judg- ment was reasons not, was recovered stated at already law in the international sense. The faith and length, penal effect, force had law and credit, judgment York New was to be a direct civil conclusiveevidence of usage from the individual defendant to the individual plain- tiff for a certain sum of and a debt of on which money, record, would an action lie, as other civil any inter judgment 'The Court partes. Appeals therefore, Maryland, this case deciding plaintiff, ground one not. which it was bound in manner to enforce, denied to the full faith, credit and effect to which it was entitled under the Constitution and laws *25 of the United States. reversed, and case
Judgment rema/nded the Court of the State "Appeals Maryland proceedings of of for further not inconsistent with the court. this opinion of Mr.' Chief dissenting. Justice Fuller This suit'was not an action at law to , recover judgment the Maryland in' upon New judgment York, nor was it an creditor’s bill ordinary a creditor to brought by reach equitable assets. and- execution had judgment no The extra-territorial force, was a and Huntington creditor in New judgment York bill, It .was the only. of a- creditor at to set aside large fraudulent alleged transfer, not judgment essential under being the statute of in that behalf. It Maryland could have been .sustained at all but for that act, and it did not assume pro- the that the upon' theory ceed. transfer because was invalid HUNTINGTON ATTRILL. Fuller,
Dissenting Opinion: C.J. defeat made with intent to the collection the' of judgment could, such. The another of' not be made judgment either at or in law executory Máryland equity. of relief in
The case was the .this ground Attrill charge stock in had transferred certain with intent to hin- April, and defraud of the his lawful der, delay plaintiff suits, debts of and demands Attrill to him as.a respect and" as director of stockholder the Kockaway .Company, which accrued the statute of New mpon under York, was. which that An action company this lia- organized.' either as stockholder or director, was barred the bility, statute limitations of and so the Maryland, Maryland court The held. recovered in New' York in judgment 1886 by Attrill aas Huntington against alleged liability to and was, however, bill, director referred made part and in that cause action .had been judgment merged. transfer fraudulent as to the And it was averred was “ out of action on which the cause indebtedness arising recited has been was recovered,” hereinbefore set forth in detail. made was York statute part pleading New while demurrer; Maryland a fact
admitted as evidence its conclusive held that court in’ and under the circumstances stated form existence character it as not changing the pleadings, regarded es- it was based. The .record .liability upon at time and creditor of debtor relation tablished the but noth- indebtedness, fact of stated and the amount further. ing had not in Maryland,
As no judgment plaintiff hadr to make out in order one, recover sought pleader, into the went original fraud as alleged perpetrated the attention court at and invited cause large, the courts whethér once arose at nature. The question of action, cause such'a enforce Maryland *26 constrained York in New its maintenance record evidence although that held The court there. existed in the form of .a judgment one contract, imposed was not one arising liability TEEM, OCTOBEE 1892. 688' Duller, Dissenting Opinion: C.J. as under Attrill that the statute no wrongdoer; inquiry
upon. whether the made creditor had been and to be deceived was to lend to his or credit, induced by deception' money give had incurred loss to extent he óf any whether inability ñor to was to the pay, recovery corporation limited that all that was ; it amount loss sustained necessary had been that the act committed, show was thereupon recover the full was entitled to amount of his creditor debt. 113 N. Y. Eaton, 623; Hun, S. C. 49 209; See Torbett N. Y. Hence the court con Attrill, Huntington Wasin nature within cluded penalty down the rule theretofore laid courts'of New York: Bliss, 35 N. Y. Wiles v. 412; Merchants’ Bank v. Suydam, 96 N. Y. Y. Stokes Chase v. 173; Stickney, 323; Curtis, N. Conn, 109 U. S. 452; 113 U. Flash the courts S. Bank v. Price, Norris Maryland, Maryland: 492. Its enforcement was therefore Wrenschall, Maryland; the bill dismissed.. declined,
. It was for the court to determine Maryland would either enforcement involve.the directly indirectly execution of laws of another State; it although been, have mistaken in the conclusion arrived at, such might this court error does not to review its give judg- - do ment. State courts in the matter of adjudicate delicts at their statutory enforceability peril.
In court my Maryland all the opinion, force gave effect it judgment which question' was entitled. confined, pleadings aris- necessarily equities out' of the cause of full original action, and faith and ing credit were- accorded -to as evi- matter .the Its effect dence. could not .such render incompetent for', the state court to decide for' itself the question- raised 'was the record. As there it was for presented, court to whether the on Attrill say obligation pay which .the sum-.for anwas obligation court was Maryland bound recognize proper foundation for relief in In transfer of equity respect .the ' n '- - (cid:127) April,
POTTS v. WALLACE.
Statement of the Case. I think that no Federal was involved, and that question n writ error to dismissed. ought
Me. Justice Me. Lamar SmEAs, Justice having .not heard the took no the decision of this case. argument, part
POTTS v. WALLACE.
EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT THE OF UNITED STATES FOR THE n EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Argued November
No. 41. Decided December1892. 14,1892. corporation Pennsylvania organized directors of under corporation assignment property voted to an of -the for the make creditors, benefit of its which vote was ratified the stockholders. They mortgage to further voted to make a claim of one of the secure preferred assignment aas was made directors claim. The without payment making mortgage. assignee In an action enforce stock, held, subscription from a stockholder of his up mortgage as defendant could not set failure to make the invali- assignment. dating the corporation, organized When 'assets of an under the laws of insolvent company by Pennsylvania, an amount fail to meet the liabilities of the equal company greater to or thán the sum from a stockholder due stock, assignee unpaid an action has subscriptions to his reason unpaid subscriptions first at him to recover without law equity resorting to for an assessment. corporation to an recover insolvent In an stockholder action creditors, it is no unpaid subscriptions for the' benefit his stock corporation offered to solvent he was defence show that when appear that he declined, further pay if it also full and his offer was n rights contract, as a his and stood to be absolved from his refused company embarrassed. stockholder until became defendant, case, and the prima plaintiff’s When makes out evidence facie jury evidence, of. go not going into his does after evidence; defence, depends fact, on his own as it far he his so abandons make out position plaintiff’s does that the evidence and takes the case. York in the New This originally brought (cid:127) into removed Court, Supreme afterwards the.-'.^Girouit n CXLVI—ii VOL.