Thompson v. Whitman
18 Wall. 457, 85 U.S. 457, 21 L. Ed. 897 (1874)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution does not preclude a court in one state from inquiring into the jurisdiction of the court that rendered a judgment in another state. A judgment from a court that lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties is a nullity and not entitled to constitutional recognition, even if the record of that judgment asserts that jurisdiction existed.
Facts:
- A New Jersey statute prohibited non-residents from raking clams in certain state waters and authorized the seizure and condemnation of any vessel used in violation of the law.
- The statute specified that proceedings for condemnation must be held before two justices of the peace in the county where the seizure was made.
- A sloop owned by a New York resident was seized in New Jersey waters for allegedly violating this clamming law.
- The seizure of the sloop did not take place within the boundaries of Monmouth County, New Jersey.
- Following the seizure, the sloop was brought into Monmouth County.
- Two justices of the peace of Monmouth County conducted a proceeding and ordered the sloop condemned and sold.
- The record of the condemnation proceeding produced by the justices of Monmouth County stated facts sufficient to give them jurisdiction under the New Jersey statute.
Procedural Posture:
- The owner of the sloop sued the person who had seized it in a court of first instance.
- At trial, the defendant introduced the record of the New Jersey condemnation proceeding as a defense to justify the seizure.
- The plaintiff challenged the validity of the New Jersey judgment, arguing the New Jersey court lacked jurisdiction.
- The trial court admitted evidence to challenge the jurisdictional facts stated in the New Jersey record.
- The jury returned a special verdict, finding that the seizure of the sloop did not occur within Monmouth County.
- Based on the verdict, the trial court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause prevent a court in a subsequent proceeding from admitting extrinsic evidence to contradict jurisdictional facts recited in the record of a judgment from another state, in order to show that the rendering court lacked jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Bradley
No. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not prevent a court from investigating the jurisdiction of the court that rendered a prior judgment, even if that means contradicting the record itself. The constitutional provision and its implementing act were intended to apply only to valid judgments rendered by a court with acknowledged jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and not entitled to faith and credit. To hold that a court's own recital of jurisdiction is conclusive would be to allow it to create jurisdiction through mere assertion, which the court described as 'reasoning in a circle.' The international law principle that a court's jurisdiction is always open to inquiry was not abrogated by the Constitution; rather, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was meant to settle the effect of valid foreign judgments, not to validate void ones. In this case, the New Jersey statute explicitly granted jurisdiction only to justices of the county where the seizure occurred. Since the jury found the seizure did not occur in Monmouth County, the justices of that county had no jurisdiction, and their judgment is void.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that jurisdictional findings are a major exception to the finality of sister-state judgments under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It clarifies that a defendant in a subsequent action can collaterally attack the original judgment by introducing evidence to show the first court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. This prevents a court from 'bootstrapping' its own authority through self-serving recitals in its records, thereby protecting due process rights. The ruling ensures that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not force courts to enforce judgments that were rendered without proper authority in the first place, reinforcing the foundational principle that a judgment is only as valid as the jurisdiction of the court that issued it.
