296 U. S. 268, 277 (1935)
Milwaukee County, a county and citizen of Wisconsin, brought suit in the District Court for Northern Illinois against M.E. White Company, a corporation and citizen of Illinois, to recover on a judgment for $52,165.84.1 This judgment had been duly recovered and entered against the appellee in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, a court of general jurisdiction.2 The judgment arose from taxes duly assessed against the appellee under Wisconsin statutes upon income received from its business transacted within the state under state license.3
The district court dismissed the cause on the ground that the suit was in substance brought to enforce the revenue laws of Wisconsin and thus could not be maintained in the district court in Illinois.4 This case comes here under § 239 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 346, on certificate of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.5 The certificate presents a question of law concerning which the instructions of this Court are desired for the proper decision of the case.6
The question certified asks whether a United States District Court in Illinois, having jurisdiction of the parties, should entertain jurisdiction of an action based upon a valid judgment for over $3,000 rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in Wisconsin against the same defendant, where the judgment was predicated upon an income tax due to Wisconsin.7
Whether a United States District Court in and for the State of Illinois, having jurisdiction of the parties, should entertain jurisdiction of an action therein brought, based upon a valid judgment for over $3,000 rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Wisconsin against the same defendant, which judgment was predicated upon an income tax due from the defendant to the State of Wisconsin?8
Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution commands that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state.9 Congress has prescribed that judgments shall have such faith and credit in every court within the United States as they have in the courts of the state from which they are taken.10 Suits upon judgments are suits of a civil nature within the original jurisdiction of the district courts.11
Yes. The established facts show that Milwaukee County, a citizen of Wisconsin, brought suit in the District Court for Northern Illinois against M.E. White Company, a citizen of Illinois, to recover on a judgment for $52,165.84 recovered in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.12 The judgment was for taxes assessed under Wisconsin statutes upon income received from business transacted within the state.13 The district court dismissed the cause on the ground that the suit was brought to enforce the revenue laws of Wisconsin.14
This case comes to the Supreme Court on certificate from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit presenting the question whether the district court should entertain jurisdiction of the action based on the Wisconsin judgment.15 A cause of action on a judgment is different from that upon which the judgment was entered.16 The validity of the claim upon which the judgment was founded is not open to inquiry in a suit upon the judgment.17 The judgment is an obligation to pay money in the nature of a debt upon a specialty.18
Recovery upon it can be resisted only on limited grounds that do not include the nature of the underlying tax obligation.19
The district court should entertain jurisdiction of the action.20
Related opinions on this issue