Document: 330 U.S. 183 67 S.Ct. 657 91 L.Ed. 832 ANGELv.BULLINGTON. No. 31. Argued Nov. 18, 19, 1946. Decided Feb. 17, 1947. Mr. George Lyle Jones, of Asheville, N.C., for petitioner. R. Roy Rush, Roanoke, Va., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 In 1940, Bullington, a citizen Virginia, sold land in Virginia to Angel, North Carolina. Only part purchase price was paid. For balance, Angel executed series notes secured by deed trust on land. Upon default one notes, Bullington acting upon an acceleration clause deed, caused all other become due and called trustees sell The sale duly made proceeds applied payment notes. This controversy concerns attempts collect deficiency. 2 began suit deficiency Superior Court Macon County, countered with demurrer, substance which that statute Carolina (c. 36, Public Laws 1933, Mitchie's Code § 2593(f)) precluded recovery such judgment. is relevant portion enactment: 3 'In sales real property mortgagees and/or under powers contained any mortgage or hereafter executed, * mortgagee trustee holder shall not be entitled judgment account mortgage, obligation same: *'. 4 overruled appeal Supreme followd. supported his ground United States Constitution from shutting doors its courts him. Court, holding Act 1933 barred Bullington's against reversed dismissed action. 220 N.C. 16 S.E.2d 411, 136 A.L.R. 1054. did seek review this here. Instead, he sued District Western pleaded bar 56 F.Supp. 372, gave Circuit Appeals Fourth affirmed. 150 F.2d 679. We granted certiorari, 326 713, 66 231, because failure dismiss action, court right thereafter recover same cause action federal court, presented important question administration justice. 5 1. start fact prevailing rule as res judicata settled law An adjudication bars future litigation between parties only issues actually raised decided but also those could have been raised. Southern Distributing Co. v. Carraway, 196 58, 60, 61, 144 S.E. 535; Moore Harkins, 179 167, 101 564. When disposition prior invoked identity causes two suits usually bone contention. On score there can here no controversy. It indisputable parties, nature claim desired relief were precisely actions successively brought first County then district court. practical purposes, complaint present carbon copy State If had it rather than another, course issue would involved. See, e.g., Woods Nierstheimer, 328 211, 996. Had case, initiated just another proper But situation. A quite different situation before us. Being somewhat unusual, calls critical consideration scope purpose doctrine judicata. 6 2. clearly anew state purp ses diversity jurisdiction 'in effect, State'. Guaranty Trust York, 99, 108, 65 1464, 1469, 89 2079, 160 1231; see Madisonville Traction Company Saint Bernard Mining Company, 239, 253, 25 251, 256, 49 462; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 369, 377, 24 853. Of course, succeeded after adverse courts, decision case involved ground. That equally true where courts. questions may erroneous immaterial purposes Baltimore S.S. Phillips, 274 316, 325, 47 600, 604, 71 1069. higher available authoritative And so whether rights necessarily adjudicated 7 3. judicata, significance what says decides controlled open decision. What litigation? sought resisted reversing trial found suit. said 8 'the limitation created declared given secure 'shall account' thereof. closes who seeks note property. operates adjective state, pertains practice procedure, legal machinery substantive effective, itself. state.' 20, 412, 9 allowable 'limitation courts' presents more local determination Speaking unanimous Brandeis thus expressed subordination requirements power withdraw courts: 'The determine limits character controversies heard them is, subject restrictions imposed Federal Constitution.' McKnett St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 292 230, 233, 54 690, 691, 78 1227. Contract Clause, U.S.Const. Art. 1, 10, Full Faith Credit art. 4, Privileges Immunities 2, fetter freedom deny access howsoever much regard withdrawal State', exercise regulate procedure' Broderick Rosner, 294 629, 642, 55 589, 592, 79 1100, 100 1133. 'cannot escape constitutional obligations simple device denying cases Courts otherwise competent.' Kenney Lodge, 252 415, 40 371, 64 638, 10 716; White Hart, 13 Wall. 646, 20 685. pervasive principle our law, statutory, put Holmes: 'Whatever springes set are endeavoring assert confers, assertion rights, w en plainly reasonably made, defeated name practice.' Davis Wechsler, 263 22, 24, 44 13, 14, 68 143. 4. Here, claims based met these claims. saying deal matters merely regulating procedure. concern itself Carolina, has last say. aside, though litigation, talismanic word 'jurisdiction'. asserted denied, sufficiency grounds denial decide. Titus Wallick, 306 282, 291, 59 557, 562, 83 653. come here, grace appeal, supra, challenge, successfully, Georgia limit courts; East New York Savings Bank recent Sav. Hahn, 69, 1279, unsuccessfully, placed Cf. 416, 716. Since reversal him out chose do so, concluded even couched terms. litigating intermediate tribunal. litigant chooses continue tribunal him, effectively proceeded through highest implies man chance win case. afforded =FNfUDd

Category: 8