strictly local, the subject-matter is specific property, and the relief when granted is such that it must act directly upon the subject-matter, and not upon the person of the defendant, the jurisdiction must be exercised in the State where the subjectmatter is situated. 3 Pomeroy's Equity, §§ 1317, 1318, and notes.

This doctrine is entirely consistent with the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which requires a judgment in any State to be given full faith and credit in the courts of every other State. This provision does not extend the jurisdiction of the courts of one State to property situated in another, but only makes the judgment rendered conclusive on the merits of the claim or subject-matter of the suit. "It does not carry with it into another State the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons, to be enforced by execution. To give it the force of a judgment in another State it must become a judgment there; and can only be executed in the latter as its laws permit." M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312.

Plaintiff seems to contend for a greater efficacy for a decree in equity affecting real property than is given to a judgment at law for the recovery of money simply. The case of Burnley v. Stevenson, 24 Ohio St. 474, 478, in a sense sustains her. The action was brought in one of the courts of Ohio for the recovery of the possession of certain lands. The defendant set up in defense a conveyance for the same lands made by a master commissioner, in accordance with a decree of a court in Kentucky in a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning the lands. The defendant in Burnley v. Stevenson claimed title under the master's deed. The court declared the principle that a court of equity, having the parties before it, could enforce specific performance of a contract for lands situate in another jurisdiction by compelling the parties to make a conveyance of them, but said that it did not follow that the court could "make its own decree to operate as such conveyance." And it was decided that the decree could not have such effect, and as it could not, it was "clear that a deed exe

cuted by a master, under the direction of the court," could "have no greater effect." Watts v. Waddle, supra, and Page v. McKee, 3 Bush, 135, were cited, and the master's deed, the court said, "must, therefore, be regarded as a nullity." But the court decided that the "decree was in personam and bound the consciences of those against whom it was rendered." It became, it was in effect said, a record of the equities which preceded it, and of the fact that it had become, and it was the duty of the defendants in the suit to convey the legal title to the plaintiff. This duty, it was further said, could have been enforced "by attachment as for contempt; and the fact that the conveyance was not made in pursuance of the order does not affect the validity of the decree, in so far as it determined the equitable rights of the parties in the land in controversy. In our judgment the parties, and those claiming under them with notice, are still bound thereby."

The court proceeded to say that it might be admitted that the decree would not constitute a good defense at law, but that it was a good defense in equity, as under the code of Ohio equitable as well as legal defenses might be set up in an action for the recovery of land, and from this, and the other propositions that were expressed, concluded that as the decree had the effect in Kentucky of determining the equities of the parties to the land in Ohio, the courts of the latter State "must accord to it the same effect" in obedience to the due faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States. "True," the court observed, "the courts of this State cannot enforce the performance of that decree, by compelling the conveyance through its process of attachment; but when pleaded in our courts as a cause of action, or as a ground of defense, it must be regarded as conclusive of all the rights and equities which were adjudicated and settled therein, unless it be impeached for fraud. See cases supra; also Davis v. Headley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115; Brown v. L. & D. R. R. Co., 2 Beasley Eq. (N. J.) 191; Dobson v. Pierce, 2 Kernan, 156; United States Bank v. Bank of Baltimore, 7 Gill, 415."

HOLMES, J., concurring.

215 U. S.

It may be doubted if the cases cited by the learned court sustain its conclusion. But we will not stop to review them or to trace their accordance with or their distinction from the cases which we have cited. The latter certainly accord with the weight of authority. There is, however, much temptation in the facts of this case to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ohio. As we have seen, the husband of the plaintiff brought suit against her in Washington for divorce, and, attempting to avail himself of the laws of Washington, prayed also that the land now in controversy be awarded to him. She appeared in the action, and, submitting to the jurisdiction which he had invoked, made counter-charges and prayers for relief. She established her charges, she was granted a divorce, and the land decreed to her. He, then, to defeat the decree and in fraud of her rights, conveyed the land to the defendant in this suit. This is the finding of the trial court. It is not questioned by the Supreme Court, but as the ruling of the latter court, that the decree in Washington gave no such equities as could be recognized in Nebraska as justifying an action to quiet title does not offend the Constitution of the United States, we are constrained to affirm its judgment.

So ordered.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BREWER dissent.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, concurring specially.

I am not prepared to dissent from the judgment of the court, but my reasons are different from those that have been stated.

The real question concerns the effect of the Washington decree. As between the parties to it that decree established in Washington a personal obligation of the husband to convey to his former wife. A personal obligation goes with the person. If the husband had made a contract, valid by the law of Washington, to do the same thing, I think there is no doubt that the contract would have been binding in Nebraska. Ex parte

215 U. S.

HOLMES, J., concurring.

Pollard, 4 Deacon, 27, 40; Polson v. Stewart, 167 Massachusetts, 211. So I conceive that a Washington decree for the specific performance of such a contract would be entitled to full faith and credit as between the parties in Nebraska. But it does not matter to its constitutional effect what the ground of the decree may be, whether a contract or something else. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230. (In this case it may have been that the wife contributed equally to the accumulation of the property, and so had an equitable claim.) A personal decree is equally within the jurisdiction of a court having the person within its power, whatever its ground and whatever it orders the defendant to do. Therefore I think that this decree was entitled to full faith and credit in Nebraska.

But the Nebraska court carefully avoids saying that the decree would not be binding between the original parties had the husband been before the court. The ground on which it goes is that to allow the judgment to affect the conscience of purchasers would be giving it an effect in rem. It treats the case as standing on the same footing as that of an innocent purchaser. Now if the court saw fit to deny the effect of a judgment upon privies in title, or if it considered the defendant an innocent purchaser, I do not see what we have to do with its decision, however wrong. I do not see why it is not within the power of the State to do away with equity or with the equitable doctrine as to purchasers with notice if it sees fit. Still less do I see how a mistake as to notice could give us jurisdiction. If the judgment binds the defendant it is not by its own operation, even with the Constitution behind it, but by the obligation imposed by equity upon a purchaser with notice. The ground of decision below was that there was no such obligation. The decision, even if wrong, did not deny to the Washington decree its full effect. Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U. S. 477, 480.

Argument for Appellant.

215 U.S.

REAVIS v. FIANZA.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE

ISLANDS.

No. 16. Argued April 26, 27, 1909.-Decided November 1, 1909.

This court has jurisdiction of this case; for, even if the requisite amount is not involved, the meaning and effect of a provision of the Philippine Organic Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1369, 32 Stats. 691, is involved. The provision of § 45 of the Organic Act of the Philippine Islands relating to title to mines by prescription refers to conditions as they were before the United States came into power and had in view the natives of the islands and intention to do them liberal justice. Courts are justified in dealing liberally with natives of the Philippines in dealing with evidence of possession. Cariño v. Insular Government, 212 U. S. 449.

The limitation of size of mining claims in § 22 of the Philippine Organic Act applies only to claims located after the passage of that act. Under § 28 of the Philippine Organic Act a valid location could not

be made if the land was occupied by one who was already in possession before the United States came into power, and the claim of one locating under those conditions does not constitute an adverse claim under § 45 of that act.

A right to an instrument that will confer a title in a thing is a right to the thing itself, and a statutory right to apply for a patent to mining lands is a right that equity will specifically enforce.

Although, if seasonably taken, an objection to the form of remedy might be sustained, after trial on the merits it comes too late. 7 Philippine Rep. 610, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Frederic R. Coudert and Mr. Howard Thayer Kingsbury, with whom Mr. Paul Fuller was on the brief, for appellant:

This court has jurisdiction both as the basis of the amount involved, and because the construction of a statute of the