290 U.S. 202 (1938)
On August 10, 1930, sixteen-year-old Sadie Yarborough was living with her maternal grandfather, R.D. Blowers, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.1 Acting through him as guardian ad litem, she filed suit in a South Carolina court against her father, W.A. Yarborough, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, seeking an order requiring him to provide for her education and maintenance.2 She alleged that she was ready for college but lacked funds and would otherwise be denied necessities and an education.3
For some time prior to June 1927 the family had lived together in Atlanta. In that month Sadie's mother left for Hendersonville, North Carolina, and Sadie joined her there after attending camp.4 In September 1927 W.A. Yarborough filed suit for total divorce in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on grounds of mental and physical cruelty.5 His wife answered and filed a cross-suit requesting a total divorce, custody of Sadie, and permanent alimony for the support and education of herself and the minor child.6
On January 17, 1929, after the first verdict, the Georgia court entered a consent order that transferred mortgages totaling $1,750 to R.D. Blowers as trustee for Sadie, to be expended in his discretion for her education, support, maintenance, medical attention, and other necessary items.7 The order stated that upon the father's compliance he would be relieved of all further payments of alimony and counsel fees.8 Two concurring verdicts were later rendered and a final decree of total divorce was entered on June 7, 1929, retaining jurisdiction for enforcement of prior orders.9 W.A. Yarborough fully complied with the January 1929 order.10
In the South Carolina action the father pleaded the Georgia judgment as a complete defense. The South Carolina trial court rejected that defense, ordered him to pay fifty dollars monthly for Sadie's education and support plus three hundred dollars in counsel fees, and directed that the attached property be transferred to the grandfather as trustee to secure performance.11 The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether a Georgia divorce decree that fixed permanent support for a minor child through a lump-sum payment to a trustee bars a subsequent action for additional support in South Carolina under the full faith and credit clause?13
Yes. The Georgia decree entered on January 17, 1929 transferred mortgages totaling $1,750 to R.D. Blowers as trustee for Sadie in full settlement of temporary and permanent alimony and all other demands.16 W.A. Yarborough fully complied with the order before the final divorce decree on June 7, 1929.17 Under Georgia law this compliance relieved the father of all further obligation to support the child during minority.18
The South Carolina court therefore could not impose additional duties upon the father who remained domiciled in Georgia.19
The Georgia decree bars the South Carolina action for additional support.20
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Cardozo
Justice Stone, joined by Justice Cardozo, dissented from the majority's application of full faith and credit.21 He argued that the Georgia decree was not intended to regulate the parent-child relationship outside Georgia where the child might later reside.22 Even if the decree were read to restrict other states' powers, the full faith and credit clause does not sanction one state's control over the internal affairs of another regarding support of a minor child.23
South Carolina possesses a compelling interest in securing maintenance for its own domiciled minors that no other state may conclusively limit by prior judgment.24 The clause does not require South Carolina to surrender its authority to provide for the child's needs from the father's property within the state when the child has become a domiciled resident there.25
Whether the minor child was bound by the Georgia divorce decree even though she was not formally made a party, served with process, or appointed a guardian ad litem in that proceeding?26
Yes. Although Sadie was not formally made a party to the Georgia divorce suit, was not served with process, and no guardian ad litem was appointed for her, the obligation of a father to support his minor child does not vest in the child a property right under Georgia law.29 The provision for permanent alimony is a legal incident of the divorce proceeding.30 Jurisdiction over the parents confers jurisdiction over the minor's custody and support.31
The minor child was bound by the Georgia decree despite the absence of formal party status or service.32
Whether the minor child's change of domicile to South Carolina after entry of the Georgia decree permits South Carolina to impose further support obligations on the father who remained domiciled in Georgia?33
No. Sadie's domicile remained Georgia, that of her father, until entry of the Georgia judgment.37 Neither her temporary residence in North Carolina nor her later removal with her mother to South Carolina effected a change of domicile.38 South Carolina acquired jurisdiction to determine her status and could impose duties upon its own residents.39 The fact of her residence there does not empower it to impose further obligations on the father domiciled in Georgia who has fulfilled the duty fixed by the law and judgment of his domicile.40
The change of domicile does not permit South Carolina to impose further support obligations on the father.41
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Cardozo
Justice Stone, joined by Justice Cardozo, dissented.42 When the minor transferred her domicile to South Carolina a new interest came into being.43 That interest is the self-preservation of South Carolina in securing protection for its own helpless community members and prospective citizens.44
The interest is distinct from any that Georgia could conclusively regulate by its earlier judgment even though rendered while the child was domiciled in Georgia.45 The full faith and credit clause does not permit the Georgia decree to encroach upon the domestic concerns of South Carolina.46 South Carolina remains free within constitutional limits to regard its interest in child support as fully as important as other sovereign powers such as control over land or marriage within its borders.47
Whether the Georgia court's jurisdiction over the parents in the divorce action extended to finally determining the extent of the father's obligation to support the minor child?48
Yes. Mrs. Yarborough filed a cross-bill praying for permanent alimony for the support and education of Sadie.51 The Georgia court thereby acquired complete jurisdiction of the marriage status and, as an incident, power to finally determine the extent of the father's obligation.52 The resulting consent order became unalterable after the term and is conclusive under Georgia law.53
The Georgia court's jurisdiction over the parents extended to finally determining the father's support obligation.54