21 Wall. 130, 22 L. Ed. 588 (1875)
Dupasseur & Co., citizens of France, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States against Sauvé after obtaining an assignment of a judgment that Jacobs had secured against Sauvé in the District Court for Jefferson Parish.1 The judgment was in the amount of $37,011.99 together with interest and costs and was secured by a special mortgage and vendor’s lien upon a plantation, slaves, stock, and other property.2 In the federal action Dupasseur sought sequestration of the crops and movables on the mortgaged property as well as a judgment directing sale of the property to satisfy the debt by preference over other creditors.3
The federal proceeding was conducted solely against Sauvé.4 Although a sequestration was issued, the marshal’s return showed that it was never executed.5 The Circuit Court rendered judgment for Dupasseur.6 Rochereau, who asserted a mortgage interest in the same property, was never made a party to the federal suit.7 Rochereau claimed that his lien was prior to that of Dupasseur because the Jacobs mortgage had lost its rank by reason of non-inscription within ten years.8
After the federal judgment was entered, Dupasseur sought to enforce it in the courts of Louisiana.9 The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided against Dupasseur’s claim.10 Dupasseur then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, asserting that the state court had failed to accord the federal judgment its proper validity and effect.11 The case arrived in the Supreme Court pursuant to the act of 1867 authorizing review of state-court decisions that deny effect to judgments rendered by courts of the United States.12
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under the act of 1867 to review a state court's refusal to give effect to a judgment rendered by a United States circuit court?13
Where a State court refuses to give effect to the judgment of a court of the United States rendered upon the point in dispute, and with jurisdiction of the case and the parties, a question is undoubtedly raised which, under the act of 1867, may be brought to this court for revision.14 The case arises under the laws of the United States establishing the Circuit Court and vesting it with jurisdiction.15
Yes. Dupasseur & Co., citizens of France, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States against Sauvé after obtaining an assignment of a judgment that Jacobs had secured against Sauvé in the District Court for Jefferson Parish.16 The judgment was in the amount of $37,011.99 together with interest and costs and was secured by a special mortgage and vendor’s lien upon a plantation, slaves, stock, and other property. In the federal action Dupasseur sought sequestration of the crops and movables on the mortgaged property as well as a judgment directing sale of the property to satisfy the debt by preference over other creditors.
The federal proceeding was conducted solely against Sauvé. Although a sequestration was issued, the marshal’s return showed that it was never executed. The Circuit Court rendered judgment for Dupasseur. Rochereau, who asserted a mortgage interest in the same property, was never made a party to the federal suit. Rochereau claimed that his lien was prior to that of Dupasseur because the Jacobs mortgage had lost its rank by reason of non-inscription within ten years.
After the federal judgment was entered, Dupasseur sought to enforce it in the courts of Louisiana. The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided against Dupasseur’s claim. Dupasseur then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, asserting that the state court had failed to accord the federal judgment its proper validity and effect. The case arrived in the Supreme Court pursuant to the act of 1867 authorizing review of state-court decisions that deny effect to judgments rendered by courts of the United States. The state court's decision against the claim of Dupasseur therefore raises a federal question reviewable under the act of 1867.17
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under the act of 1867 to review the state court decision.18
Whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana refused to give proper validity and effect to the judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States in the suit brought by Dupasseur?19
The only effect that can be justly claimed for the judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States is such as would belong to judgments of the State courts rendered under similar circumstances. If by the laws of the State a judgment like that rendered by the Circuit Court would have had a binding effect as against Rochereau if it had been rendered in a State court, then it should have the same effect.20
No. The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided against Dupasseur’s claim after the federal judgment was entered and Dupasseur sought enforcement in state court.2122 Rochereau was not made a party to the federal suit against Sauvé.23 The federal proceeding was an ordinary hypothecary action to enforce a special mortgage rather than a proceeding in rem, and Rochereau asserted a prior lien based on non-inscription of the Jacobs mortgage within ten years.24 Because the judgment would not have bound Rochereau even if rendered by a Louisiana state court, the state court did not refuse to accord the federal judgment its due and legal effect.25
The Supreme Court of Louisiana did not refuse to give proper validity and effect to the federal judgment.26
Whether the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States would have bound Rochereau if it had been rendered by a Louisiana state court?27
The same general rule of law and justice prevails in Louisiana as elsewhere to the effect that no persons are bound by a judgment or decree except those who are parties to it and have had an opportunity of presenting their rights.28 Prior mortgagees and those having elder titles not made parties to the suit cannot be affected by the judgment unless the proceeding was in rem or the pact de non alienando applied to a subsequent mortgagee.29
No. Rochereau was not made a party to the suit of Dupasseur in the Circuit Court of the United States.30 The sequestration issued was a mere ancillary process that was never executed and did not change the character of the suit into a proceeding in rem.31 Rochereau asserted a prior lien rather than a subsequent mortgage, and the point in dispute was precisely whether his lien or the Jacobs mortgage held priority after non-inscription within ten years.32 The judgment therefore would not have had the effect of binding and concluding Rochereau if it had been rendered in a State court.33
The judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of the United States would not have bound Rochereau if it had been rendered by a Louisiana state court.34