Citation network
Morris Vs. Jones
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 20, 1947
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 545 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. JonesSearch
-
U.S. 545 (1947) Morris v. JonesSearch
-
The case was brought here by appeal. We postponed the question of jurisdiction to the merits. Under the rule of Roche v. McDonaldSearch
-
obtained it, he could not have enforced it against the property in the hands of the Missouri liquidator, see McDonald v. PacificSearch
-
to prove his claim in judgment form. No question of parity of treatment of creditors, or the lack thereof ( see Blake v. McClungSearch
-
S. 239 ), is in issue. Nor is there involved in this case any challenge to the Illinois rule, which follows Relfe v. RundleSearch
-
of the liquidator, either through an attempt to obtain a lien on the property or otherwise. As pointed out in Riehle v. MargoliesSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
does not necessarily involve a determination of what priority the claim should have. And see Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. FoxSearch
-
Proceedings, 30 Yale L.Journ. 674, 680. Moreover, we do not have here a situation like that involved in Pendleton v. RussellSearch
-
the suit. Nor is it sought on any other ground to bring the Missouri judgment within the exception on which Williams v. NorthSearch
-
the subject matter. Nor is there any lack of privity between Chicago Lloyds and the Illinois liquidator. Cf. Ingersoll v. CoramSearch
-
U. S. 335 , 211 U. S. 362 -364. There is no difference in the cause of action, cf. United States v. CaliforniaSearch
-
from the responsibility for defending pending actions than there is for relieving a receiver of that task. Riehle v. MargoliesSearch
-
U. S. 225 . Such a judgment obtained in a sister State is, with exceptions, not relevant here, see Williams v. NorthSearch
-
faith and credit in another State, though the underlying claim would not be enforced in the the forum. Christmas v. RussellSearch
-
had been appointed than the fact that a statute of limitations of the the forum might have barred it. See Christmas v. RussellSearch
-
Under Missouri law, petitioner's judgment was a final determination of the nature and amount of his claim. See Pitts v. FugateSearch
-
Central Trust Co. v. D'ArcySearch
-
Robb v. ShainSearch
-
Id., p. 320 U. S. 439 . And see Riley v. NewSearch
-
had notice, should have been given full faith and credit by the Missouri court, only a word need be said. Roche v. McDonaldSearch
-
U. S. 454 -455, makes plain that the place to raise that defense was in the Missouri proceedings. And see Treinies v. SunshineSearch
-
resort to this Court, which is the final arbiter of questions arising under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Williams v. NorthSearch
-
as to the nature and amount of petitioner's claim as against all defenses which could have been raised. Roche v. McDonaldSearch
-
Milwaukee County v. WhiteSearch
-
Vallely v. NorthernSearch
-
it may do so, except as such procedure collides with the federal Constitution or an Act of Congress. See Broderick v. RosnerSearch
-
provision or the Act of Congress in cases involving money judgments rendered in civil suits. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. HuntSearch
-
Williams v. NorthSearch
-
a judgment of one State in another State may run counter to the latter's policies. But the answer given by Fauntleroy v. LumSearch
-
Illinois creditors would go begging, Illinois would have such a large interest at stake as to prevent it. See Clark v. WilliardSearch
-
which departs from the principle of parity as between Illinois creditors and creditors from other States. See Clark v. WilliardSearch
-
Attorney General v. SupremeSearch
-
Hackett v. SupremeSearch
-
The Illinois rule announced in the instant case is likewise applicable in receivership proceedings. Evans v. IllinoisSearch
-
Pringle v. WoolworthSearch
-
of suits in other courts, at least where they were pending at the time of the appointment of the receiver. Riehle v. MargoliesSearch
-
supra. And see Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. FoxSearch
-
Theaters Corp., supra, and Dickinson v. UniversalSearch
-
See In re Paramount Publix Corp., 85 F.2d 42, and cases collected in 106 A.L.R. pages 1121 et seq. Cf. Robinson v. TrusteesSearch
-
the insurance business is as old and as pervasive as any regulatory power exercised by our States. See, e.g., Osborn v. OzlinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. JonesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial