Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

D'Arcy v. Ketchum

Supreme Court of the United States · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureFull Faith and CreditPersonal JurisdictionSister-State Judgmentsfull faith and creditAct of 1790personal jurisdictionservice of process

Facts

Plaintiffs had obtained a judgment in a New York court against Gossip and D'Arcy on an alleged joint and several debt. Gossip and D'Arcy were partners, but only Gossip was served with process in New York; D'Arcy was a citizen and resident of Louisiana and was not served there. Under a New York statute, judgment could be entered against all joint debtors when one was brought into court, and the New York court entered a joint judgment against both men after Gossip allowed judgment to go by default. Plaintiffs then sued on that New York judgment in Louisiana.

Issue

Whether a New York judgment entered against a Louisiana citizen who was not served with process and did not voluntarily appear is entitled, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Act of 1790, to the same binding force in Louisiana that it has in New York. Put differently, can New York by statute bind an absent out-of-state joint debtor through a judgment rendered without service on him?

Rule

The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Act of 1790 require one state to give a sister-state judgment the same conclusive effect it has where rendered only where the defendant was served with process or voluntarily made defense. A judgment purporting to bind the person of a citizen of another state who was not served and did not appear is void in the foreign state, and the Act of 1790 does not give such a judgment additional force.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Redstone Supply, a Missouri wholesaler, sued two alleged joint debtors in a court in Illinois. One debtor, Evan Morse, was personally served in Chicago, but the other, Lina Perez, had moved to New Mexico months earlier, was never served in Illinois, and never appeared; Illinois law allows judgment against all named joint debtors when one is brought into court.

Redstone later sues Lina on the Illinois judgment in a New Mexico court. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a sister-state judgment is not entitled to binding effect against a defendant's person in another state if that defendant was not served with process and did not voluntarily make defense in the rendering state. A local statute giving broader effect at home does not compel another state to treat the judgment as conclusive under the Act of 1790. (Derived from D'Arcy v. Ketchum (n.d.).)