Domestic Character of Judgments. Judgments of the national courts are not foreign to the courts of the respective districts, nor are they foreign in their relation to the courts of the several States; but are domestic and homogenous throughout the nation, in like manner as those of the State courts are throughout the States in which they are rendered.1

The judgments, decrees and proceedings of the national courts prove themselves everywhere by the seal of the court from which they emanate, and need no such additional authenticity as the judge's certificate, or other evidence of their genuineness, than a certificate of the clerk and the seal of the court. These are prima facie evidence of their validity in all other American courts, State and national. They do not come within the provisions of Section 1 of the 4th Article of the Constitution, or the act of Congress relative to the authentication of records and judicial proceedings of the several States, in each State, but are of themselves entitled to full faith and credit in every State and Territory, and wherever our national jurisdiction extends, and in every department thereof.2

In like manner the records and proceedings of the State and Territorial courts, certified and authenticated by the clerk, and seal of the court, so as to give them authenticity in the courts of the same State, will also give them authenticity and credit in the courts of the United States, without the particular authentication prescribed by act of Congress in respect to their authentication for use in the courts of another State; for the act of Congress in that respect is not applicable to the records and proceedings certified from a State to a Federal court, these courts not being foreign to each other, as the State courts of the different States are. 3

Trial by Jury. Private Property for Public Use. The provision of the United States Constitution that secures the right of

1 Ex parte Schollenberger, 6 Otto, 369, 376, 379, may be cited as bearing upon this subject.

2 Article 4, Cons. U. S.; Thomson v. Lee Co., 22 Iowa, 206; Reed v. Ross, 1 Bald. C. C. 36; Niblet v. Scott, 4 La. Ann. 245; St. Albans v. Bush, 4 Vt. 58; Barney v. Patterson, 6 Harr. & J. 182; U. S. v. Wood, 2 Wheeler's Cr.

Cases, 326; Murray v. Marsh, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 290; Buford. Hickman, Hempst. 232; Mason v. Lawrason, 1 Cr. C. C. 190; Mewster v. Spalding, 6 McLean, 24; Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 299; Dean v. Chapin, 22 Mich. 275.

Mewster v. Spalding, 6 McLean, 24; Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 299.

trial by jury, has reference to trial in courts of the United States, and not to those of the several States. Likewise the provision that private property shall not be taken for public use, without compensation therefor. This inhibition binds the Federal government only, and is not obligatory upon the governments of the States. In the case here referred to, of Barron v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, the Supreme Court of the United States, MARSHALL, C. J., say: "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated."3

2. Citizenship and Allegiance. The Constitution of the United States declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside.4

This amendatory declaration but reflects the prior annunciations of the Supreme Court, in respect to the citizens of the United States being, in virtue thereof, citizens of the States in which they reside. In the case here cited, of Gassies v. Ballon, the party alleged that he was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and resided in the State of Louisiana. The allegation was held to be equivalent to an averment direct that the party making it was a citizen of the State of Louisiana. MARSHALL, Ch. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "A citizen of the United States, residing in any State of the Union, is a citizen of that State." Thus the citizenship of the State, where resident, is recognized as flowing from that of citizenship of the United States, both by the Federal ruling of the Supreme Court, and by the Constitution as subsequently amended, being a reflex of the unity of government and national supremacy referred to in the preceding section of this chapter. Or, as Chief Justice

1 Proffatt on Trial by Jury, § 83; Livingston v. Mayor of New York, 8 Wend. 85, 100; Colt v. Eves, 12 Conn. 243.

Barron, etc. v. Mayor, ctc., of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243.

37 Pet. 247.

Article 14, § 1, of Amendments to the Constitution.

'Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761.
• Ibid.

MARSHALL expresses it, "The national and State system are to be regarded as one whole." This supremacy and sovereign unity of government, in a national point of view, is still more strongly indicated in the oath of allegiance required by law of Congress to be administered to persons when being naturalized. The sworn allegiance is that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and not of any State.

3. Suits between Two or More States. In suits between two States, involving a civil controversy, the Constitution vests the jurisdiction exclusively in the Supreme Court of the United States. 1

Such jurisdiction is limited to civil controversies, as contradistinguished from those of a political nature. It is necessary that some right of property, or pecuniary interest, or value, be involved for determination of the court. Mere political interests or questions will not, alone, confer jurisdiction, for such are not the subject of judicial investigation or control, as has been shown in Chapter I. of this work. The political right to be a State cannot be determined in any court. Such questions do not come within the compass of judicial authority, but are to be determined by the political departments of the government. So, in regard to the right of a State to be a member of the American Union. In all these cases, the action of the political departments the President and Congress of the United States-determines the matter, and will be accepted and conformed to by the courts, as a finality. But where the proper element of jurisdiction is present in a cause, jurisdiction thus far will not be prevented by the presence of political elements."

1 § 2, Art. 3, Cons. of U. S.; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657. 2 Georgia v. Stauton, 6 Wall. 74; Georgia v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 500; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 755; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461, and 5 Pct. 284; Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 66; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, and 10 How. 1; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1; Fellows

v. Blacksmith, 19 How. 366; Foster o. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet. 415; Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343. The State must be a party on the record. Osborn v. Bank of U. S. 9 Wheat. 738. But a suit against a governor of a State, as such, answers this require ment. Governor of Georgia v. Mandrazo, 1 Pet. 110.

4. Suit Against a State by a Citizen of Another State. Upon general principles, a sovereign State cannot be sued, unless by

consent.1

The second section of the third article of the national Constitution, however, as originally adopted, rendered the States suable, not only as against each other, but at the suit of citizens of other States, and vested jurisdiction of such cases in the Supreme Court. But, by subsequent amendments of the Constitution, the suing of a State in the courts of the United States is entirely inhibited, except in cases of suits between two or more States. Thus the right of one State to sue another still remains, and the jurisdiction of such suits is exclusive in the Supreme Court, as we have seen in the preceding section of this chapter.

1 Beers v. Alabama, 20 How. 527; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257; Bank of Washington v. Arkansas, 20 How. 530.

Art. XI. of Amendments to the Constitution of the U. S.

3

378.

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall.

CHAPTER IV.

INTER-STATE RIGHTS OF SUIT

JURISDICTIONAL REQUISITES.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AS WELL AS BY COMITY.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION: WHEN NECESSARY.

PROCEEDINGS IN REM.

SEALED AND UNSEALED INSTRUMENTS.

NON-RESIDENTS PERSONALLY SUABLE IF FOUND AND SERVED.

VI. JURISDICTION OBTAINED BY FRAUD.

VII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
VIII. SERVICE ON A MEMBER OF A FIRM AS AGAINST A NON-RESIDENT MEM-
BER THEREOF.

1. A Constitutional Right, as well as by Comity. Not only as matter of comity, which under the unity of our national government may not be withheld, but also in virtue of the 2d section of the 4th article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," and which adds to comity an absolute and binding law, the citizens and inhabitants of each State have a right to sue, and are liable to be sued, in the courts of all the States, in all such actions and suits in law and in equity as in their nature come within the sphere of interState jurisdiction.1

2. Personal Jurisdiction: When Necessary. But to sustain a personal judgment against a defendant, personal jurisdiction must be had, either by appearance or by personal service of process, made within the territorial limits of the State where suit is brought; and non-residence is no objection to such jurisdiction where personal service is thus made.2

Personal Jurisdiction, Is not attainable in the courts of one State against a citizen or resident of another State by personal

1 Story on the Constitution, §§ 1805, 1806; Cooley's Const. Lim. *15, and Note 4, *16.

Swan v. Smith, 26 Iowa, 87; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521. But judgment

without jurisdiction is void. Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9; Schwinger . Hickok, 53 N. Y. 280; Freeman on Judgments, §§ 564, 566; Lawrence v. Jarvis, 32 Ill. 304.