| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Hagood & Others v. Southern & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The case arose when the state court of South Carolina issued an injunction against the federal court in the same state, preventing it from hearing a case involving the collection of a debt. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such an injunction, as it was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court further held that the state court's action was an unconstitutional interference with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court also held that the state court's action was a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which requires that the judgments of one state be given full faith and credit in other states. The Court concluded that the state court's injunction was invalid and that the federal court had the authority to hear the case.
In the case of Hagood & Others v. Southern & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over certain lands in South Carolina that were owned by citizens of other states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and thus dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens "the Privileges and Immunities" of each state regardless of their citizenship status, these individuals should be allowed access to justice in any state court; secondly he argued that even if there was no constitutional basis for allowing them access to justice in another state's courts then Congress still had authority under its power to regulate interstate commerce to pass legislation granting them such rights. In conclusion Justice Field believed that either through an interpretation or application of existing law or through new legislation passed by Congress these individuals should be granted access to justice in any State court they choose.