deed for real estate situate in Tennessee null and void. This court said to concede such power would be "to attribute to that decree the force and effect of a judgment in rem by a court having no jurisdiction over the res." And, explaining the power of a court of equity, said that "by means of its power over the person of a party a court of equity may in a proper case compel him to act in relation to property not within the jurisdiction, its decree does not operate directly upon the property nor affect the title, but it is made effectual through the coercion of the defendant, as, for instance, by directing a 'deed to be executed or canceled by or on behalf of the party. The court has no inherent power by' the mere force of its decree to annul a deed or to establish a title. Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151, 155."

Whether the doctrine that a decree of a court rendered in consummation of equities, or the deed of a master under it, will not convey title, and that the deed of a party coerced by the decree will have such effect is illogical or inconsequent, we need not inquire nor consider whether the other view would not more completely fulfill the Constitution of the United States, and that whatever may be done between the parties in one State may be adjudged to be done by the courts of another, and that the decree might be regarded to have the same legal effect as the act of the party which was ordered to be done. The policy of a State would not be violated. Besides, this court found no impediment in the policy of a State in the way of enforcing, under the due faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States, a judgment obtained in Missouri, sued upon in Mississippi. The defense was that the cause of action arose in Mississippi and was one that the courts of the State, under its laws, were forbidden to enforce. The defense was adjudged good by the Supreme Court of Mississippi and its judgment was reversed by this court. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230.

In Hart v. Sansom, supra, it was directly recognized that it was within the power of the State in which the land lies to

provide, by statute, that if the defendant is not found within the jurisdiction, or refuses to perform, performance in his behalf may be had by a trustee appointed by the court for that purpose.

In Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243, 246, 247, while recognizing that litigation in regard to the title of land belongs to the courts of the State where the land is so located, it was said, "although if all the parties interested in the land were brought personally before a court of another State, its decree would be conclusive upon them, and thus, in effect, determine the title."

But, however plausibly the contrary view may be sustained, we think that the doctrine that the court, not having jurisdiction of the res, cannot affect it by its decree, nor by a deed made by a master in accordance with the decree, is firmly established. The embarrassment which sometimes results from it has been obviated by legislation in many States. In some States the decree is made to operate per se as a source of title. This operation is given a decree in Nebraska. In other States power is given to certain officers to carry the decree into effect. Such power is given in Washington to commissioners appointed by the court. It was in pursuance of this power that the deed in the suit at bar was executed. But this legislation does not affect the doctrine which we have expressed, which rests, as we have said, on the well-recognized principle that when the subject-matter of a suit in a court of equity is within another State or country, but the parties within the jurisdiction of the court, the suit may be maintained and remedies granted which may directly affect and operate upon the person of the defendant and not upon the subject-matter, although the subjectmatter is referred to in the decree, and the defendant is ordered to do or refrain from certain acts toward it, and it is thus ultimately but indirectly affected by the relief granted. In such case the decree is not of itself legal title, nor does it transfer the legal title. It must be executed by the party, and obedience is compelled by proceedings in the nature of contempt, attachment or sequestration. On the other hand, where the suit is

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 partics 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