Mills v. Duryee
United States Supreme Court
11 U.S. 481, 7 Cranch 481 (1813)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Duryee (plaintiff) obtained a money judgment against Mills (defendant) in New York state court, which Duryee sought to collect via a suit in the District of Columbia (D.C.) circuit court. Per Duryee, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution required the D.C. court to enforce his New York judgment, which Duryee submitted to the D.C. court pursuant to a federal statute that provided for the authentication of state-court judgments. Duryee contended that under the statute, the New York judgment conclusively established Mills’s obligation to pay. Mills disagreed, arguing that the New York judgment merely was evidence that supported Duryee’s claim but that Mills could rebut that evidence. The court of appeals ruled that the federal statute established the New York judgment as conclusive proof of Mills’s debt under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Mills appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Story, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
