Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co.
1939 U.S. LEXIS 129, 60 S. Ct. 44, 308 U.S. 66 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of res judicata, when a court of competent jurisdiction has fully and fairly litigated the jurisdictional authority of a sister state's court and rendered a final judgment, that determination of jurisdiction is itself binding and precludes relitigation of the issue in subsequent proceedings.
Facts:
- Amelia Pelkes died testate in Washington in 1922, leaving an estate that included 30,598 shares of Sunshine Mining Company stock.
- Her will provided that three-fourths of the shares would go to her husband, John Pelkes, and one-fourth to her daughter from a previous marriage, Katherine Mason.
- Instead of following the formal distribution order, Pelkes and Mason privately divided the inventoried estate property.
- A dispute arose over the uninventoried Sunshine Mining stock; Pelkes claimed Mason had released her interest in it as part of their private division, while Mason claimed Pelkes agreed to hold half the shares in trust for her.
- The stock, initially considered valueless, later became highly valuable.
- John Pelkes subsequently assigned his interest in the stock to Evelyn H. Treinies.
Procedural Posture:
- Katherine Mason sued John Pelkes and Evelyn H. Treinies in the District Court of Shoshone County, Idaho, to establish a trust over the disputed stock.
- While the Idaho case was pending, Pelkes and Mason also litigated ownership of the same stock in the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington, the court handling Amelia Pelkes' probate.
- On May 31, 1935, the Washington Superior Court entered a judgment awarding the stock to Pelkes.
- Subsequently, the Idaho District Court decreed that the stock belonged to Mason, a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court of Idaho.
- Pelkes and Treinies then filed a new suit in Washington Superior Court to quiet title, arguing the Idaho decree was invalid for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Sunshine Mining Company, facing conflicting claims, filed a bill of interpleader in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, asking the federal court to determine the rightful owner.
- The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Mason, enforcing the Idaho state court judgment.
- Evelyn H. Treinies, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Mason, the appellee.
- The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit.
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 doctrine of res judicata bar a federal court in an interpleader action from relitigating the jurisdiction of a Washington state court after an Idaho state court has already adjudicated and finally determined that the Washington court lacked jurisdiction over the same subject matter and parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Reed
Yes. The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of the Washington court's jurisdiction because that issue was already decided by the Idaho court. The Idaho court, a court of general jurisdiction with all parties before it, expressly considered and ruled upon the jurisdiction of the Washington probate court. It concluded that the Washington court lacked jurisdiction to decide ownership of the stock after the estate had been distributed. This determination on jurisdiction is itself a final judgment entitled to respect. The principles of res judicata apply to questions of jurisdiction just as they do to other issues. Therefore, the Idaho court's holding that the Washington court lacked jurisdiction is conclusive and cannot be collaterally attacked in this federal interpleader action.
Analysis:
This case establishes the 'last in time' rule for resolving conflicting state court judgments under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It clarifies that the principles of res judicata extend not only to the merits of a case but also to jurisdictional determinations. A state court's ruling on the validity and jurisdiction of another state court's judgment is itself a judicial act that must be respected, preventing endless relitigation of the same issue. This decision prioritizes finality, holding that even an erroneous jurisdictional determination by the second court is binding unless corrected on direct appeal, not through a collateral attack in a third court.
