Burbank v. Ernst,
232 U.S. 162 (1914)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Burbank v. Ernst, 232 U.S. 162 (1914)

Burbank v. Ernst

No. 151

Argued .January 15, 16, 1914

Decided January 26, 1914

232 U.S. 162


Where the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment depends upon domicile, that question is open to reexamination in the court of another state asked to give the judgment full faith and credit as required by the federal Constitution. Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14.

Where the evidence as to domicile of the deceased is conflicting and the state court is warranted in finding that the court of probate of another state did not have jurisdiction to probate a will because the domicile of deceased was not in that state, this Court will not retry the facts, and under the facts, as found in this case, the decree of probate is not entitled to full faith and credit in another state.

Where the headnote of a decision of a state court is not given special

Page 232 U. S. 163

force by statute or rule of court, the opinion is to be looked to for original and authentic grounds of the decision.

129 La. 528 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Louisiana, and the determination whether that court was required to give full faith and credit to a judgment of the probate court of Texas, are stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.