FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829  
830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   >>   >|  
itution, they must have been located in the State; as to tangibles and realty outside the State, the decree of the probate court is entirely at the mercy of the _lex rei sitae_.[82] So, the probate of a will in one State, while conclusive therein, does not displace legal provisions necessary to its validity as a will of real property in other States.[83] ADOPTION DECREES That a statute legitimizing children born out of wedlock does not entitle them by the aid of the full faith and credit clause to share in the property located in another State is not surprising, in view of the general principle--to which, however, there are exceptions (_see_ pp. 675-682)--that statutes do not have extraterritorial operation.[84] For the same reason adoption proceedings in one State are not denied full faith and credit by the law of the sister State which excludes children adopted by proceedings in other States from the right to inherit land therein.[85] GARNISHMENT DECREES A proceeding which combines some of the elements of both an _in rem_ and an _in personam_ action is the proceeding in garnishment cases. Suppose that A owes B and B owes C, and that the two former live in a different State than C. A, while on a brief visit to C's State, is presented with a writ attaching his debt to B and also a summons to appear in court on a named day. The result of the proceedings thus instituted is that a judgment is entered in C's favor against A to the amount of his indebtedness to B. Subsequently A is sued by B in their home State, and offers the judgment, which he has in the meantime paid, in defense. It was argued in behalf of B that A's debt to him had a _situs_ in their home State, and furthermore that C could not have sued B in this same State without formally acquiring a domicile there. Both propositions were, however, rejected by the Court, which held that the judgment in the garnishment proceedings was entitled to full faith and credit as against C's action.[86] FRAUD AS A DEFENSE TO SUITS ON FOREIGN JUDGMENTS As to whether recognition of a State judgment can be refused by the forum State on other than jurisdictional grounds, there are _dicta_ to the effect that judgments, for which extraterritorial operation is demanded under article IV, section I and acts of Congress, are "impeachable for manifest fraud." But unless the fraud affected the jurisdiction of the court, the vast weight of authority is against the propo
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   805   806   807   808   809   810   811   812   813   814   815   816   817   818   819   820   821   822   823   824   825   826   827   828   829  
830   831   832   833   834   835   836   837   838   839   840   841   842   843   844   845   846   847   848   849   850   851   852   853   854   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

proceedings

 

judgment

 
credit
 

garnishment

 

States

 

property

 

action

 
children
 

proceeding

 

DECREES


extraterritorial

 

probate

 

located

 

operation

 
behalf
 

argued

 

Subsequently

 

instituted

 

entered

 

result


amount

 

indebtedness

 
meantime
 
defense
 
formally
 

offers

 
DEFENSE
 

article

 
section
 
demanded

judgments
 

jurisdictional

 
grounds
 
effect
 

Congress

 

weight

 
authority
 
jurisdiction
 

affected

 
impeachable

manifest

 

refused

 

entitled

 

rejected

 

domicile

 

propositions

 
recognition
 

JUDGMENTS

 
FOREIGN
 

acquiring