Harrah v. Craig

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 1952 No. Civ. 15233Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A final judgment from a Nevada court is entitled to full faith and credit in California, and the underlying legality of the original transaction is res judicata and cannot be relitigated in the forum state.

Issues

Whether a California court may refuse to enforce a Nevada judgment on the grounds that the underlying transaction violated public policy.
Whether the legality of the original transaction underlying a foreign judgment can be relitigated in a sister state.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Constitution of the United States requires a State of the United States to enforce a valid judgment for the payment of money ... if it was rendered in another State of the United States, although it would have been contrary to the public policy of the forum to allow action on the original claim.”

“the issue of illegality has already been decided adversely to defendant by the Nevada judgment and is res judicata, and, of course, under the rule of the Fauntleroy case cannot be attacked in this state.”

BRAY, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment against him based upon a Nevada judgment.

Question Presented

The effect in California of a final judgment of a Nevada court based upon the cashing of checks in a Nevada gambling house.

Facts

On January 16, 1948, plaintiff recovered judgment against defendant for $500 and interest in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada. This judgment was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in

Craig

v. Harrah, — Nev. — [201 P.2d 1081]. (See, also,

Craig

Harrah,

65 Nev. 294 [195 P.2d 688].) Plaintiff then filed in the Justice’s Court of Oakland Township, California, this action upon that judgment. Defendant answered, alleging that the Nevada action was a suit on a gambling obligation and against public policy. He also counterclaimed for money had and received by defendant in the sum of $3,250. Because this amount exceeded the jurisdiction of the justice’s court the ease was transferred to the superior court. At the trial, over the objection of plaintiff, testimony was taken of the circumstances of the transaction upon which the actions are based, and a transcript of the testimony in the Nevada case was admitted in evidence.

Plaintiff owns and operates Harr ah’s Club in Reno, Nevada, a bar and gambling house, licensed for gambling under the laws of that state. Defendant entered the club for the purpose of gambling. He had approximately $80 in cash which he lost in gambling. As a courtesy to the club’s patrons its cashier cashes checks. The cashier cashed personal checks of defendant totalling $750. Defendant used this money for gambling and won the sum of $2,500, represented by chips, which the cashier exchanged for currency of a like amount. Defendant subsequently lost it all in gambling there. Defendant testified that all the money he received from the checks he cashed he spent in gambling except for some amount spent at the bar. Defendant stopped payment on $500 of the checks. These actions were brought for the recovery of that sum. In cashing

[69]

Harrah v. Craig

AI Brief

BRAY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief