Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/109

RECENT CASES. 93 Common Carriers — Contract Restraining Business.— Owners of rival steamboats agree to share profits, etc., in a certain way, and also that if either wishes to sell with a view to going out of the trade, notice should be given to the owners of the other boat, and the owner so selling should not enter the trade again within one year. Held, that this agreement is void, as it is against public policy as restraining trade. Anderson v. Jett et al.^ 12 b. W. Rep. 670 (Ky.). Common Carriers — Discrimination— Tank Cars* — Quo Warranto. — The defendant company was accustomed to charge a much lower rate for oil shipped in tank cars owned by the shipper than for oil in barrels shipped in the cars of the company. Held, that no discrimination could be made in favor of those shipping in their own cars, as it is the duty of the carrier to provide suitable cars, and therefore the company must either charge the same rate for both methods, or else supply tank cars for all. State v. Cincinnati Ry, Co,, 23 N. E. Rep. 928 (Ohio). Constitutional Law — Full Faith and Credit to be Given to the Records OF Another State. — A, a resident of Massachusetts, learning that his debtor B., also a resident of Massachusetts, had stopped payment, assigned his claim without consideration to C. , a citizen of New York, who served a gar- nishee process on D., a debtor of B. in New York. The plaintiffs, B.'s assignees in insolvency, brought a bill in equity to restrain A. from prosecuting the attach- ments made in New York. The Massachusetts court granted a decree. Cujtning- ham v. Butler, 142 Mass. 47. Held, per Fuller, C. J., the judgment should be affirmed. A court of equity has the power to restrain any one within its juris- diction from doing acts abroad. The record of the New York court disclosed an inchoate lien in favor of A. If, for any cause, however, he had failed in his action, the lien would have fallen with it. Accordingly, when the Massachusetts court restrained A. from prosecuting his suit to judgment, the attachment of itself dissolved, and the Massachusetts court had in no way impeached the New York record. Cole v. Cunningham, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269. Miller, Field, and Harlan, ]]., dissenting. The discussion presented in this case suggests a line for the classification of the authorities upon this interesting point in constitutional law. It would seem that the cases which have arisen under the provision in question might be divided into two classes : (i.) Cases in which it is said that the State court has done no act which disregards the record of another State. (2.) Cases in which it is allowable to do such an act. even though it clearly disregards the record. The above case belongs in the first class. The Massachusetts court simply exercised its acknowledged jurisdiction in personam, and in no way denied what the New York record showed, — an inchoate lien. So the pendency of a suit in one State is not a bar to an action between the same parties and upon the same subject-matter brought in another State. Stanton v. Knihrey, 93 U. S. 548 ; Memphis R. Co. v. Grayson, 7 So. Rep. 122. A foreign judgment does not necessarily enjoy the same priority, privilege, or lien as to goods situated in another State, which would be given it in the State where it was pronounced. Story, Confl. Laws, § 609. (2.) The other class of cases. As to those facts upon which the foreign court based its jurisdiction of the parties or subject-matter of the suit, the court of an- other State may directly contradict the recitals in the foreign judgment. Thomp- son V. Whitinan, 18 Wall. 457 ; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 O.St. 600. There are many dicta that the record of another State may be impeached on the simple ground of fraud ; but in most, if not all cases, the decisions may be placed upon the more clearly defined ground of lack of jurisdiction. J'eopl: v. Daivell, 25 Mich. 247. It would seem that the mere fact that a citizen of one State goes into another to • evade the laws of his own State, is not sufficient fraud to justify the disregard of a judgment obtained in the court of the foreign State. Lawrence v. Batchelder^ 131 Mass. 504; Green v. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139. For the authorities, see Cooley, Cons. Lim. *I7, n. i ; Story, Confl. Laws, §§608-9, ^^<i notes. Constitutional Law — Liberty — Police Power. — A clause of the code of West Virginia which provides that no person without a State license shall " keep in his possession for another spirituous liquors, " is unconstitutional and void. It is contrary to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be justified as an exercise of the police power. State v. Gilman, 10 S. E. Rep. 283 (W. Va.).