American Express Co. v. Mullins

Citations

• 212 U.S. 311
• 29 S. Ct. 381
• 53 L. Ed. 525
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1815

Syllabus

<p>Where in the state court defendant distinctly claimed that a recovery would be prevented if full faith and credit were given to a judgment of the courts of another State, and this claim is expressly denied, this court has jurisdiction to review under § 709, Rev. Stat.</p> <p>The duty of the carrier to safely carry ,and promptly deliver to the con-' signee the goods entrusted to it does not require it to forcibly resist judicial proceedings in the courts of the State into or through which the goods are carried.</p> <p>While the carrier may appear and contest the validity of a seizure under judicial process of goods in its custody, if it seasonably notify the owner and call upon him to defend, it is relieved from further responsibility; and, in absence of fraud or connivance on its part, it may plead the judgment rendered against it as a bar in an action brought - by the owner.</p> <p>Where the state court has sustained a demurrer to an answer which set forth a complete defense in the absence of fraud, connivance or consent on defendant’s part, this court will determine for itself from the record whether the record shows any fraud, connivance or consent.</p> <p>A judgment is conclusive as to all media concludendi and cannot be impeached in or out of the State by showing it was based on mistake of ‘ law. Fauntleroy v. hum, 210 U. S. 230.</p>