Texas Law Review, Volume 95, Number 6, May 2017 Page: 1,282
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas Law Review
one else had to listen. New York's statutes simply couldn't settle the question
when 'neither the legislative jurisdiction [of New York], nor that of [its]
courts of justice, had binding force. '237
3. Federal-Question Review.-D Arcy was purely a negative decision:
it confirmed that courts were under no obligation to recognize a judgment
that lacked international sanction. But it quickly gave rise to more
affirmative holdings, as the federal courts were now clearly committed to
international rules of jurisdiction. So when one state court denied recognition
to the valid judgment of another-valid, that is, according to the federal view
of things-the losing party could seek Supreme Court review under section
25 of the Judiciary Act, portraying the denial as contrary to a 'title, right,
privilege or exemption specially set up or claimed' under the 1790 Act.238
In this way, the 1790 Act served as an occasional 'hook' for the Court
to correct state-court errors on the general law of jurisdiction. In 1867, the
Court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction to review a New York
decision refusing to give effect to an Illinois judgment.239 Two New Yorkers
claimed certain movable property located in Chicago; the property was
attached and awarded to one of them in Illinois, but a New York court later
denied Illinois's in rem jurisdiction, in light of an outstanding mortgage under
New York law.240 The two states' substantive laws disagreed on whether the
property had been liable to attachment, and the Supreme Court applied what
it saw as the general conflicts rule-namely that the state where the property
was located had had full power to attach and dispose of it.241
This rule didn't come from any federal statute, of course, and questions
of general law couldn't support federal jurisdiction on their own.242 If the
issue were merely one of New York law, or even of general conflicts or
property law that New York had adopted as its own, then the Court would
have had no grounds for federal-question review of the New York
judgment243-any more than it could review ordinary errors in state property
237. Id.
238. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 25, 1 Stat. 73, 85-86 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.
1738 (2012)); accord Dupasseur v. Rochereau, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 130, 134 (1875) ("[W]hether
the validity or due effect of a judgment of the State court, or that of a judgment of a United States
court, is disallowed by a State court, the Constitution and laws furnish redress by a final appeal to
this court."); see also Christmas v. Russell, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 290, 301-03 (1866) (holding that the
1790 Act rendered a Mississippi statute "unconstitutional and void as affecting the right of the
plaintiff to enforce' a valid Kentucky judgment).
239. Green v. Van Buskirk, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 307, 314 (1867).
240. Id. at 311, 313.
241. Green v. Van Buskirk, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 139, 148-52 (1869).
242. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 286, 287 (1875).
243. See Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 325 (1818) (Story, J.) (refusing to examine
a state court's award of damages because it was "a question depending altogether upon the common
law, and not on a 'law of the United States").1282
[Vol. 95:1249
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Matching Search Results
View 11 pages within this issue that match your search.Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas Law Review Association. Texas Law Review, Volume 95, Number 6, May 2017, periodical, June 2017; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth903368/m1/106/?q=green+energy: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.