another state against that defendant. Yet where the defendant takes no part in the proceedings after responding to the complaint as filed, and on those pleadings a judgment is rendered which is in no way responsive to them, that fact may be set up in bar to a recovery on the judgment.98 A court may take jurisdiction of an action for divorce brought by a citizen of its own state, upon constructive notice of the action being given to the defendant," but where neither party is domiciled within the state, then, although the defendant has received actual notice, a decree of divorce is not entitled to faith and credit in any other jurisdiction.100 Where a corporation chartered by one state is permitted by another state to transact business therein upon condition that service of process upon a resident agent of the corporation should be considered as service upon the corporation, a judgment rendered in the latter state against the corporation, and based upon such service of process upon the agent, must be received in the state chartering the corporation with the same faith and credit that is given to it in the state wherein it is rendered.1 But a judgment in personam rendered against a foreign corporation in a suit begun in a state court by an attachment of property, and, as incident thereto, a service of a copy of the writ and an inventory of the attached property on a resident agent, without appearance by the corporation, is not conclusive in another action to which the corporation is a party in a court of the United States.2 Where a court of one state grants pro 100 Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14; Brewer, Shiras, and Peckham, JJ., dissenting. See also G. S. & L. S. v. Dormitzer, 192 id. 125; Bell v. Bell, 181 id. 175; Streitwolf v. Streitwolf, ibid. 179. bate of a will disposing of lands in another state, it merely decides that the will was executed in accordance with the laws of the domicile, and a court of the state in which the land is situated does not violate the constitutional provision in deciding that the will was not executed in accordance with its own laws. The record of a judgment rendered in another state may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and its recital of the existence of such facts is not conclusive, and want of jurisdiction may be shown either as to the subjectmatter or as to the person, and, in proceedings in rem, as to the res. Therefore, in an action of trespass de bonis, etc., in a court of the United States against a county sheriff of New Jersey for taking the plaintiff's oyster boat, the defendant having pleaded in justification the record of a forfeiture of the boat under a New Jersey statute authorizing a summary conviction on a hearing by two justices of the county in which the seizure was made, it was held, that the recital in the record of a seizure of the boat in the county in which the justices exercised jurisdiction was open to contradiction by evidence that the seizure was not made within the territorial limits of that county. On the same principle, a recital in a record of a personal service of a summons upon a defendant, may be contradicted by proof that the defendant was not served; and a recital of appearance by attorney may be contradicted by showing that no attorney was authorized to appear for the defendant in the suit. Administrators in different jurisdictions of the personal estate of the same decedent are not privies in estate to the extent that a judgment in one jurisdiction against one administrator 5 Blount v. Walker, 134 U. S. 607. 7 enforcible in the other jurisdiction against the adninistrator therein; and the grant of letters of administration in one state cannot authorize the administrator to maintain any suit in the courts, either state or federal, held in any other state. An objection to the informality of the authentication of a record cannot be made by a party who has antecedently offered that identical record in another proceeding. In a suit for wages the defendant can set up a judgment in garnishment proceedings against the same wages, recovered in another state, and that judgment is a bar to further action.10 A state statute of limitations, providing that suits upon judgments rendered in other states, if not brought within two years, shall be barred, is a bar to an action on such a judgment against one who only became a citizen of the state on the day on which suit was brought. A judgment recovered on a penal statute of a state cannot be enforced in another jurisdiction; 12 but the rule is otherwise when the judgment has been recovered on a statute affording a private remedy to the person injured.13 A state may deny to its courts jurisdiction over suits between foreign corporations on a foreign judgment, for "this provision of the Constitution establishes a rule of evidence rather than of jurisdiction."' 14 Wherever a state court refuses in a cause to give due effect to a judgment rendered in a court of the United States, or in a court of another state, having by law jurisdiction of the subject-matter of litigation, and having acquired by due service of process, or otherwise, 7 Stacy v. Thrasher, 6 How. 44. Johnson v. Powers, 139 U. S. 156. 'Urtetiqui v. D'Arbel, 9 Pet. 692. 10 C., R. I. & P. Ry. v. Sturm, 174 U. S. 710. "Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 522. 12 Wisconsin v. P. I. Co., 127 U. S. 265. 18 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657; Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bank, 176 id. 559; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, ibid. 640. 14 A. A. P. Co. v. D. P. Co., 191 U. S. 373. jurisdiction of the person of the party against whom judgment has been rendered, the action of the state court in so refusing is subject to review in the Supreme Court of the United States under the 25th Section of Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Act of 5th February, 1867.15 The record of a court of the United States is sufficiently proved when certified by the clerk of the court under its seal.16 And the judgments of the courts of the United States, when sued upon, or set up by way of defense in state courts, are, if rendered in a cause of which the court of the United States had jurisdiction both as to the subject-matter and the res or the person of the defendant, conclusive upon the parties and privies thereto, and enforcible in the state courts to the same extent as in courts of the United States.17 Judgments rendered in courts of the United States in causes, jurisdiction of which was obtained by reason of the citizenship of the parties, and in which the law of the state within which the court sat was administered, have only that validity and effect which is due to a judgment of a court of the state in such a cause,18 and, therefore, a court of a state which refuses to give a greater effect to such a judgment of a court of the United States cannot be said to decide against a title or right claimed under an authority exercised under the United States. 15 14 Stat. 385. Rev. Stat., Sec. 709. 16 Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418. 17 Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3; Werlein v. New Orleans, 177 id. 390. See also N. F. & P. W. v. O. W. S. Co., 183 id. 216; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 id. 499. CHAPTER XI. RIGHTS OF PERSON AND OF PROPERTY. 119. Citizenship of the United States. 120. Citizenship of a state. 121. The right of suffrage. 122. The right of serving on juries. 123. Congressional regulation of federal elections. 124. Immigrants and aliens. 125. Personal and property rights. 126. The rights within a state of citizens of other states. 127. Foreign corporations. 128. The I Amendment. 129. The XIII Amendment. 130. The XIV Amendment. 131. The equal protection of the laws. 132. The police power. Citizenship of the United States. 119. As Miller, J., stated in the judgment in the Slaughter House Cases,1 the Constitution, as originally adopted, did not define citizenship of the United States, although it did, by Section 2 of Article IV, provide that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," and, by Section 2 of Article I, declare citizenship of the United States to be a necessary qualification for election as a representative in Congress. In view of that which the Constitution said, and of that which it left unsaid, it might well have been thought that citizenship of the United States was dependent upon and only incident to citizenship of a state, but the point was not judicially determined before the adoption of the XIV Amendment. In a recent 116 Wall. 72. |