US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

In order to give this Court jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under § 2.37, Judicial Code, the assertion of a federal right must not be frivolous or wholly without foundation; otherwise, an utterly baseless federal right might be made the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court merely for purposes of delay.

Whether a consent by a defendant to a revivor amounts to an estoppel against challenging the capacity of the substituted plaintiff to continue the action is purely a question of local law or practice, and the decision of the state court is controlling.

Nothing in the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution or in the statute enacted thereunder requires the authenticated proof of a decree to include all the pleadings and proceedings.

Where the original decree entered in one state and sued on in another does not purport to lay a reciprocal duty on the judgment creditor, but simply recites that, on performance, the judgment debtor becomes entitled to papers in the registry of the court, full faith and credit is not denied because the judgment entered on the decree in the latter state does not impose an actual reciprocal duty on the judgment creditor.

In this case, the federal questions raised being so plainly devoid of merit as to be frivolous, the writ of error is dismissed.

Writ of error to review 88 Kan. 717 and 873 dismissed.

The facts, which involve the application of the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution and the jurisdiction of this Court under 237, Judicial Code, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 237 U. S. 470