337 U.S. 535 (1949)
Respondent Interstate Realty Co., a Tennessee corporation, sued petitioner Woods, a Mississippi resident, in the United States District Court for the District of Mississippi to recover a broker’s commission for the sale of real estate in Mississippi.1 Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.2
The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant.3 It found that the contract was void under Mississippi law because the respondent had been doing business in the state without qualifying under Mississippi Code of 1942, § 5319.4 It therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice.5
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that judgment after reviewing Mississippi decisions and determining that the contract was not void but only unenforceable in Mississippi courts.6 Relying on an earlier precedent, it held that the federal court could hear the case.7
After granting rehearing, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its reversal.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the apparent conflict with its recent decision in Angel v. Bullington.9
Whether a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction may entertain an action for a broker's commission that Mississippi state courts would not allow because the foreign corporation plaintiff had failed to qualify to do business under state law?10
No. This case was brought in the District Court for Mississippi on the grounds of diversity of citizenship.13 Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, sued petitioner, a resident of Mississippi, for a broker’s commission alleged to be due for the sale of real estate of petitioner in Mississippi.14 The District Court found on motion for summary judgment that the contract was void under Mississippi law, since respondent was doing business in Mississippi without qualifying under a Mississippi statute.15
It therefore dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed after reviewing the Mississippi decisions and concluding that the contract was not void but only unenforceable in the Mississippi courts.16 It held that the fact that respondent could not sue in the Mississippi courts did not close the doors of the federal court sitting in that State.17
The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the seeming conflict of that holding with its recent ruling in Angel v. Bullington.18 The Court explained that Angel v. Bullington followed the view that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction a federal court is in effect only another court of the State.19 The policy of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins precludes maintenance in the federal court in diversity cases of suits to which the State has closed its courts.20
The federal court may not entertain the action.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Rutledge And Burton
Justice Jackson dissented from the majority's holding.22 He contended that the Court of Appeals had properly reviewed state court decisions and determined that Mississippi law withholds only the aid of state-maintained courts without depriving contracts of validity or foreclosing resort to federal courts.23 Justice Jackson maintained that the majority refused to give the statute the limited effect intended by state courts.24
He argued that this gave the state law a different meaning in federal court than the state courts have given it.25 Justice Jackson concluded that this approach perverts the Erie doctrine and would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.26