Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.
337 U.S. 535, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1524, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2148 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply a state statute that bars a foreign corporation from maintaining an action in state courts for failure to comply with state qualification requirements, even if the state courts construe the statute as merely a procedural bar and not as invalidating the underlying contract.
Facts:
- Interstate Realty Co., a Tennessee corporation, engaged in business activities within the state of Mississippi.
- Mississippi law (Miss. Code 1942, § 5319) required foreign corporations doing business in the state to file a written power of attorney designating an agent for service of process, and stated that non-compliant corporations could not bring or maintain actions in state courts.
- Interstate Realty Co. did not comply with Mississippi's corporate qualification requirements.
- Interstate Realty Co. entered into a contract with Woods, a resident of Mississippi, to act as a broker for the sale of Woods' real estate located in Mississippi.
- Interstate Realty Co. subsequently sought to recover a broker’s commission from Woods for the sale of the real estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Interstate Realty Co. (respondent), a Tennessee corporation, sued Woods (petitioner), a Mississippi resident, in the federal District Court for Mississippi, seeking a broker's commission on the grounds of diversity of citizenship.
- The District Court granted Woods' motion for summary judgment, finding that the contract was void under Mississippi law because Interstate Realty Co. was doing business in Mississippi without qualifying, and thus dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment, concluding that Mississippi law rendered the contract merely unenforceable in state courts, not void, and held that Interstate Realty Co. could still maintain the action in federal court.
- The Court of Appeals granted a rehearing and subsequently reaffirmed its initial reversal.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve a seeming conflict with its prior ruling in Angel v. Bullington.
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 a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction have to apply a state statute that prohibits a foreign corporation from suing in state courts for failure to register, when the state courts themselves interpret this statute as only a procedural bar and not as invalidating the underlying contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas, announced by Mr. Justice Reed
Yes, a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply a state statute that prohibits a foreign corporation from suing in state courts for failure to register, even if the state courts interpret this statute as only a procedural bar and not as invalidating the underlying contract. The Court found that the holding in David Lupton’s Sons Co. v. Automobile Club, which allowed foreign corporations barred from state courts to nonetheless sue in federal court, is now “obsolete” following Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Citing Angel v. Bullington, the Court affirmed that Erie precludes federal courts in diversity cases from entertaining suits to which the state has closed its courts, as this would create discrimination against citizens of the state. This principle is rooted in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, which established that for diversity purposes, a federal court is, “in effect, only another court of the State.” Consequently, a right created by local law that is not supplied with a remedy in state courts is no right at all for purposes of enforcement in a federal court in a diversity case, as the purpose of Erie was to eliminate such discriminations.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
No, a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction should not interpret a state statute to close federal courts when state courts have interpreted it as only closing state courts. Justice Jackson argued that the Court of Appeals properly sought to apply state decisional law, which, despite some ambiguity, indicated that Mississippi intended only to withhold the aid of state-maintained courts from a non-complying corporation, without invalidating the contracts or foreclosing federal court access. He contended that the majority's decision “perverts” the Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins doctrine by giving the state law a different meaning in federal court than the state courts have given it. Justice Jackson characterized the statute, as interpreted by the majority, as a “harsh, capricious and vindictive measure” that results in the unjust enrichment of the debtor and whose punishment bears no relation to the wrong done to the state.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the application of the Erie doctrine, clarifying that federal courts in diversity jurisdiction must apply state law regarding procedural bars that effectively deny a remedy in state courts, thereby overturning the prior precedent of David Lupton’s Sons Co.. It reinforces the 'outcome-determinative' test from Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, ensuring that the outcome of litigation does not differ simply because a federal court's diversity jurisdiction is invoked. The decision underscores the principle that federal courts, when sitting in diversity, function as 'another court of the State,' and cannot provide a remedy where state courts would deny one, thereby preventing forum shopping and inequitable administration of the law.
