Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/92715/gasquet-vs-lapeyre
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:53:09+00:00

Document:
The provision in § 9 of Article I of the Constitution guaranteeing the privilege of habeas corpus is not a limitation upon state action.
state courts can raise no question under the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
To invoke the full faith and credit clause and the act of Congress passed to carry it into effect, Article IV, § 1, Rev.Stats., § 905, on behalf of a judgment of one state in a court of another, it is necessary by allegation or proof or in some other recognized mode, to bring to the attention of that court the law or usage which defines the effect of the judgment in the state of its rendition.
Assignments of error contrary to the foregoing propositions are frivolous.
Writ of error to review 136 La. 957 dismissed.
In a proceeding against the plaintiff in error, wherein he was fully heard, the civil district court of the parish of his residence and domicil pronounced a judgment of interdiction against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court of the state, which affirmed the judgment (136 La. 957), and thereafter he sued out this writ of error. Our jurisdiction is challenged by a motion to dismiss.
Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 674 , 168 U. S. 683 ; Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638 ; Burt v. Smith, 203 U. S. 129 , 203 U. S. 135 ; Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270 , 224 U. S. 280 -281; De Bearn v. Safe Deposit Co., 233 U. S. 24 , 233 U. S. 34 ; McDonald v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co., 233 U. S. 665 , 233 U. S. 669 -670; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22 , 101 U. S. 30 .
The facts bearing upon the remaining assignment are as follows: after the judgment of affirmance by the supreme court and during the pendency of a petition for rehearing, the plaintiff in error, claiming that, upon his release from custody by habeas corpus, he had removed to, and become a resident and citizen of, Shelby County, Tennessee, petitioned the probate court of that county for an inquisition respecting his sanity. The court entertained the petition, and within a day or two rendered a judgment thereon finding that the plaintiff in error had become a resident and citizen of Tennessee, adjudging that he was sane and able to control his person and property, and declaring that any disability arising from the proceedings in Louisiana was thereby removed. He then brought the proceedings in Tennessee -- all certified conformably to the law of Congress -- to the attention of the Louisiana Supreme Court by a motion wherein he insisted that, under the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, § 1, and the law passed by Congress to carry it into effect, Rev.Stats. § 905, the judgment in Tennessee was conclusive of his residence and citizenship in that state and of his sanity and ability to care for his person and property, and that, in consequence, the interdiction proceeding should be abated. But the motion was denied, along with the petition for a rehearing, and in the assignments of error it is said that, in denying the motion, the court declined to give the judgment in Tennessee the full faith and credit required by the Constitution and the law of Congress.
no basis for a review here, but the statement of one will suffice. What the Constitution and the congressional enactment require is that a judgment of a court of one state, if founded upon adequate jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter, shall be given the same faith and credit in a court of another state that it has by law or usage in the courts of the state of its rendition. This presupposes that the law or usage in the latter state will be brought to the attention of the court in the other state by appropriate allegation and proof, or in some other recognized mode, for the courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws or usage of another state. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1 ; Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S. 615 ; Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 222 , 155 U. S. 227 ; Western Life Indemnity Co. v. Rupp, 235 U. S. 261 , 235 U. S. 275 . Here, the law or usage in Tennessee, where the judgment was rendered, was not in any way brought to the attention of the Louisiana court, and therefore an essential step in invoking the full faith and credit clause was omitted. In this situation, the claim that the Louisiana court refused to give effect to that clause is so devoid of merit as to be frivolous.

References: § 9
 § 1
 § 905
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 905
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.