Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

JUNE TERM, 1818.

CHEW & RELF vs. EDWARD RANDOLPH.

A duly authenticated transcript of a judgment obtained in the Courts of the State of Louisiana against a resident of the State of Mississippi, founded upon proceedings by attachment, and without the service of any process upon the defendant, is not admissible as presumptive evidence in the courts of this state, in an action of debt founded upon such judgment.

THIS was an action of debt brought in the Superior Court of Wilkinson County, founded upon a judgment of the State of Louisiana. The defendant pleaded 1st. nil debit, 2d. nul tiel record, upon which pleas, issues were joined. On the trial below, the plaintiff offered to read, as evidence, a transcript of the record of said judgment, duly authenticated, from which it appeared, that the suit in which that judgment was rendered, was commenced by attachment under the laws of Louisiana, against the defendant, who, at the time of the institution of the suit, was not within the limits of the state of Louisiana, but was a resident of the state of Mississippi. The defendant's counsel objected to the reading of said transcript, because it did not show that the defendant had been personally served with process, or had any notice of the pendency of the suit. The court below, sustained the objection, and would not permit the said transcript to be read. The plaintiff, thereupon, submitted to a non-suit, but afterwards moved the court to set it aside, upon the ground, that the judge erred in excluding said transcript: which motion was by order of the judge and consent of parties transferred to the Supreme Court, for their decision.

Turner for plaintiff.-The judgment of a foreign court is by our laws considered as presumptive evidence of a debt, when such court had jurisdiction

A

of the case. But by the constitution of the United States, and the act of congress, the judgments of a sister state stand on very different ground. The records &c. of a sister state,when authenticated as the act of congress requires, "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state, from whence the said records are or shall be taken." There has been some contrariety of decision in the courts of the different states, upon the proper construction of this act of Congress; but the better opinion seems to be, that the judgment of a sister state, duly authenticated, is to be received in all cases, ás presumptive, and in many, as conclusive evidence of a debt. 1 Dal. 261; Add. 265; Har. 413; 1 N. Y. T. Rep. 460. The transcript of the record which we offered to read, is duly authenticated, and the judgment rendered in strict conformity with the laws of Louisiana. Some property of the defendant, found within the limits of that state, was attached by legal process, which gave that court jurisdiction of the cause. The court will not, under such circumstances, reverse a foreign judgment, much less, that of a sister state. 2 Dal. 51, 221, 302; 2 Bay 485; 1 Day 168; 1 Penn. 407. Can it be pretended that the record of this judgment, would not be received as evidence, in the courts of Louisiana, to support an action of debt brought on it in that state? Certainly not. Then an authenticated copy of it, ought, under the act of Congress before referred to, to be received in the courts in this state, as prima facie evidence at least.

Reed and Harding per contra-The object of the plaintiff in this case, is to carry into effect, in this state, a judgment obtained by him against the defendant in the state of Louisiana upon a process by attachment, to which the defendant made no defence, and of which he had no notice. The courts of this state will not carry into execution the judgment of a foreign court, or of a sister state, unless the court rendering it, had jurisdiction, both of the cause and the parties. If it appears from the record, that the defendant had been served with process and resided within the state or country where the judgment was rendered, our courts will, from courtesy, presume jurisdiction, and will consider the judgment as prima facie evidence of debt. But when, as in the present case, it appears that the defendant was not an inhabitant of the state in which the judgment was obtained, that he was not served with process, and had no notice of the suit, and that the proceedings wer

« AnteriorContinuar »