Mooney v. Hinds
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Angelo v. Martin (Massachusetts Superior Court 2002)
- University of Pennsylvania v. Halpern (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2009)
- Liu v. Clement (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 2006)
- Bentley v. Marshall (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1965)
- Chittick v. Chittick (Mass. 1955)
- Durfee v. Durfee (Mass. 1936)
- Mottu v. Davis. (N.C. 1909)
- Garvey v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1902)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The bill in this case admits that the court in California which rendered the decree complained of had jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of William Mooney. The plaintiff seeks to avoid the effect of the decree by alleging that it was obtained by the fraud, misrepresentation, and gross and wanton negligence and mistake of the defendants. The question raised by the demurrer is whether, admitting the facts alleged in the bill to be true, this court has any power to
The Constitution of the United States, art. 4, § 1, provides: “ Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.”
In Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, it was held, in an action on a judgment recovered in another State, that the fact that the judgment had been obtained by fraud could not be pleaded in defence. See also Maxwell v. Stewart, 22 Wall. 77, 81; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 4.
The same principle has been held to apply where it is sought in one State to set aside a decree rendered in probate proceedings in another. Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439, 459.
As the question before us depends upon the construction of a provision of the Federal Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are binding upon us. Eliot v. McCormick, 144 Mass. 10.
If fraud in obtaining the decree cannot be inquired into, it follows that neither mistake, misrepresentation, nor gross and wanton negligence can be. See Broderick's will, 21 Wall. 503.
The decree dismissing the bill must be Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.