Legal Document

385 U.S. 188 87 Supreme Court Reporter 357 17 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 286 Robert D. WATKINS, Appellant,v.J. Federal KF105 F3 CONWAY. Number 65. Argued Nov. 9, 1966. Decided Dec. 5, William G. Vance, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant. Martin McFarland, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 This litigation began when appellant Watkins brought a tort action against Conway in circuit court of Florida. On October 1955, that rendered $25,000 judgment Five years and one day later, sued upon this superior Georgia. Appellee raised § 3—701 the Georgia Code as bar to proceeding: 2 'Suits foreign judgments.—All suits judgments obtained out State shall be within five after such have been obtained.' The trial gave summary In so doing, it rejected appellant's contention 3—701, read longer limitation period on domestic set forth Ga.Code §§ 110—1001, 110—1002 (1935), was inconsistent with Full Faith Credit Equal Protection Clauses Constitution. affirmed, also rejecting constitutional challenge 3—701. 221 Ga. 374, 144 South Eastern Reporter, 2nd 721 (1965). We noted probable jurisdiction under 28 KF62 1257(2). 383 941, 86 1200, 16 205 (1966). 3 Although lays his claim two provisions, reality complaint is simply has drawn an impermissible distinction between judgments. He argues statute understandable solely reflection Georgia's desire handicap out-of-state creditors. If analysis purpose effect were correct, we might well agree violates For decisions which appellee relies do not justify discriminatory application limitations actions.1 4 But interpretation courts given convinces us misconstrued it. bars only if plaintiff cannot revive where originally obtained. relevant date applying original judgment, but rather latest revival judgment. Fagan versus Bently, 32 534 (1861); Baty Holston, 108 Ga.App. 359, 133 107 (1963). case at bar, example, all need return Florida judgment.2 can then come back file suit free 5 It seen, therefore, discriminated from Instead, focused law State. had or less its own judgments, would able recover here.3 disability flow conclusion Legislature should barred period.4 construction merely honor give conclusion. Thus, full faith credit insured, than denied, Similarly, there no denial equal protection scheme State's view validity Such hardly reflects invidious discrimination. 6 Affirmed. 7 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents. most directly point, M'Elmoyle Use Bailey Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 10 L.Ed. 177, upheld deal today. parties did argue statute's shorter ground invalidity. issue presented concerned power impose any See argument plaintiff, Pet., 313—320, 177. language Wayne's opinion—'may state fix different times barring remedy another state, those tribunals,' 328, 177 must argument. And, course, opinion stand equal-protection claim, since written nearly 30 before Fourteenth Amendment adopted. Neither cases cited by dictates result case. first, Metcalf City Watertown, 153 671, 14 947, 38 861, involved Wisconsin provided foreign, opposed domestic, holding construed placing same federal sitting apply court. other precedent below, Great Western Tel. company Purdy, 162 329, 810, 40 986, dealt Iowa placed orders courts. 20 years. Fla.Stat.Ann. 95.11(1) (1960). appears still ample time bring Massey Pineapple Orange Co., Fla. 100 Southern KF135 S69 170 (1924); Spurway Dyer, 48 F.Supp. 255 (D.C.S.D.Fla.1942). Moreover, obtain substituted service process over proceeding. 48.01(9) (1943). procedure reviving similar Alabama—Ala.Code, Tit. 7, 574 (1960)—which held (1963), short means matter mere speculation. Freeman, Law Judgments 1076 (5th ed. 1925). consider become dormant, proceeding could brought, faced Frank Wolf, 468, Southeastern S6 697 (1916).

Classification Label: 7