3 Wheat. 234, 235
Hampton v. M’Connel presented facts and issues identical in all respects to those previously decided in Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch 481.1
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.2 The Court stated that it could not distinguish the two cases.3
The opinion also addressed an argument advanced in Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. Rep. 121, before the supreme court of New York concerning the proper pleas available in actions upon judgments from other states.4
The doctrine established in Mills v. Duryee therefore governs the outcome here without modification.5 The Court applied the rule that the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect in every other court of the United States which it had in the state where it was pronounced.67 The Court affirmed the judgment below.8
Whether the present case is precisely the same as Mills v. Duryee?9
the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such state, and none others, could be pleaded in any other court in the United States.10
Yes. The controversy presented facts and issues identical in all respects to those previously decided in Mills v. Duryee.11 Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court stated that it could not distinguish the two cases. The doctrine from Mills v. Duryee therefore governs the outcome here without modification.12
The present case is precisely the same as Mills v. Duryee.13
Whether the Court can distinguish the two cases on any ground?14
The judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect in every other court of the United States which it had in the state where it was pronounced.
No. The controversy presented facts and issues identical in all respects to those previously decided in Mills v. Duryee. The opinion also addressed an argument advanced in Borden v. Fitch before the supreme court of New York concerning the proper pleas available in actions upon judgments from other states. However, the Court found no basis for distinction in this matter.15
The Court cannot distinguish the two cases on any ground.16