Crider v. Zurich Insurance Company Page 28

Crider v. Zurich Insurance Company general information

Media for Crider v. Zurich Insurance Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 19, 1965 in Crider v. Zurich Insurance Company

Max C. Pope:

However, I think the procedure in Alabama is, like Mr. Etheredge said, I think it is as the complaint has alleged and you take a judgment, so to speak, on that complaint.

This will be my understanding of it.

However, I think, according to the Pearson case, it could be said that the only thing Alabama did was to say the Georgia law is the Alabama law.

This is the way we're going to enforce it.

We do not violate any law -- any federal law.

We do not deprive the petitioner -- the respondent of any due process or any rights he has under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Hugo L. Black:

Your reference to the Georgia law was that you want to recover the amount that would have been recoverable under Georgia law.

Max C. Pope:

Yes, sir.

That was --

Hugo L. Black:

That was your sole reference to it, wasn't it?

Max C. Pope:

That was the sole reference.

Hugo L. Black:

As I see it.

Max C. Pope:

That was the sole reference to it.

In -- in its -- I think one thing about the Pearson case that brings it up and also the Babcock versus Jackson case which is a New York case, it came out.

Judge Fuld, in that case, said that to give regard -- give any thought to this recognizing part of it and denying part of it, he said it would give rise or give -- we would have to raise the relics of the vested rights theory.

In a dissent in the Clay Insurance case, when it first came up the first time from the Fifth Circuit --

Earl Warren:

Go finish your statement.

Hugo L. Black:

When it came up, the dissenting opinion in that case in a footnote, Footnote 15, it said Constitution requiring blind and unfair application of the internal law, the place of making, which he was talking about a contract of course, is a return to that outmoded and territorial and vested rights theories of conflicts of laws long ago outgrown by our jurisprudence.

I maintain that Georgia had no vested rights in this administrative right.

It's different than the federal laws where the federal law is supreme law and it's not analogous to the state versus state.

That is all.

Thanks.