US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

A mere error of law not involving a federal question and committed in the exercise of jurisdiction by giving conclusive effect to a judgment rendered in another state afford no opportunity for a review in this Court.

If the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, the merits of the controversy are not open for reinvestigation in the courts of another state; but, under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution and § 905, Rev.Stat., the latter must give the judgment such credit as it has in the state where it was rendered.

The proper method of obtaining a review of the federal question adversely decided by the state court is by writ of error to this Court under § 237, Judicial Code, and not by collaterally attacking the judgment on the ground that it denies due process of law when it is invoked in the courts of another state. chanrobles.com-red

Page 234 U. S. 739

Where the effect of the judgment of another state dissolving an injunction as res judicata is denied on the ground that it is not a final decree, if the contention that a final decree was subsequently rendered which concluded the merits was not presented to the court, there is no basis for review in this Court under § 237, Judicial Code on the ground that full faith and credit was not given to the original judgment.

Writ of error to review 71 W.Va. 161 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the application of the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution and the jurisdiction of this Court to review a judgment of the state court under § 237, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion.