States; and this, too, notwithstanding the plaintiff might have a remedy by execution, or otherwise, in the court where rendered.1 Thus, an action will lie in a State court upon a judgment of a United States Court for the same district in which the State is situated. 2

Judgment Against Non-Resident. And although the defendant in a judgment sued on was not an inhabitant of the State when and where the suit was brought, and in which judgment was rendered against him, yet whether an inhabitant or not, if personally served with the original process in such suit, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or if he voluntarily appears to the same, he thereby becomes personally subject to the jurisdiction and such judgment is a valid cause of action in another State, unless impeached in some manner allowed by law. Thus, if there be service without appearance, or appearance without service, jurisdiction of the person attaches, and a judgment in personam is valid if by a court of general jurisdiction, and such judgment will be treated in the courts of others of the States as entitled to full faith and credit under the United States Constitution and laws, when so authenticated as to bring it within their provisions.4 And though the service be insufficient in manner, yet if received and acted on as service by the court, it is mere matter of error and not of invalidity, and is binding until reversed or set aside. The authorities here cited

1 Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65; Houghton v. Raymond, 1 Sandf. 682; McGuire v. Gallagher, 2 Sandf. 402; Church v. Cole, 1 Hill, 645; Burton v. Stewart, 11 Ind. 238; Ames v. Hoy, 12 Cal. 11; Canfield v. Miller, 13 Gray, 274; White River Bank v. Downer, 29 Vt. 332; Chandler v. Warren, 30 Vt. 510; Freeman on Judgments, § 432.

2 Davidson v. Nebaker, 21 Ind. 334. 3 Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; Danforth v. Thompson, 34 Iowa, 243; Woodward v. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542. But jurisdiction of defendant's person, so as to justify the rendering of a personal judgment, cannot be had by service of a process on him in a different State than where the action

is pending, or to be brought. Bates v. The Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co., 19 Iowa, 260; Darrance v. Preston, 18 Iowa, 396; Lawrence v. Jarvis, 32 Ill. 30; Freeman on Judgments, SS 564,

566.

4 Woodward v. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542, 549; Mayhew v.Thatcher,6 Wheat. 129; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Freeman on Judgments, §

566.

5 Woodward v. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542, 549; Milne v. Van Buskirk, 9 Iowa, 558; Bonsall v. Isett, 14 Iowa, 309; Johnson v. Butler, 2 Iowa, 535; Moore v. Parker, 25 Iowa, 355; Holt v. Alloway, 2 Blackf. 108; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308; Aldrich . Kinney, 4 Conn. 308; Smith v. Smith,

are none the less in point, from the fact that the decisions, in many of the cases, were made in the courts of the same State wherein the judgments brought in question were rendered; for under the constitution and laws of the United States, as we have herein before seen, judgments are entitled to the same force and effect in other States as they attain where rendered.

Judgment Satisfied or Reversed. Where a judgment is ob tained in a court of a State on a judgment of another State, and is paid by the defendant, and the judgment of the other State is afterwards reversed or set aside, in such case a right accrues to the judgment debtor in the judgment so paid to have refunded the amount so paid, and an action will lie therefor.1

If the payment be by a third party who is obligated to save the defendant harmless against the same, then the same right accrues to such third party.2

In such cases, of suit for the same, the right of action will be held, on a plea of the statute of limitations, to have accrued at the time of the reversal or vacation of the original judgment, and not at the date of payment of the judgment rendered thereon.3

Judgment Still Pending When a Bar to an Action on the Original Demand. When a valid judgment has been obtained in one State which is unsatisfied, and which the judgment debtor has not attempted to avoid, a suit on the original demand in another State it has been held would be barred if the defendant pleaded the judgment.4

Action on Informal Judgment. In actions on judgments of another State wherein technical forms of action are abolished, and where the records of the judgments sued on come duly authenticated according to the acts of Congress, the courts will regard such judgments as of the same force as accorded to them. in the State where rendered, regardless of any want of conformity to the uses and forms of the common law.5

Conclusiveness of Judgments. Judgments of other States are

17 Ill. 482; White v. Merritt, 7 N. Y. 352.

'Etna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 38 Wis. 107.

Etna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 38 Wis. 107. See, also, Mann v. Etna Ins. Co., 40 Wis. 549.

3 Mann v. Etna Ins. Co., 38 Wis. 114; S. C., 40 Wis. 549.

4 Henderson v. Staniford, 105 Mass. 504.

Griffin v. Eaton, 27 Ill. 379.

conclusive of the matter therein adjudicated as well when on default, if there was service, as in other cases; and pleas merely questioning the right of the original recovery are of no validity to an action on the judgment of another State-nor pleas setting up fraudulent recovery, as affecting the adjudication of the court in rendering the judgment, as that the judgment was obtained by fraud. Such defenses cannot be collaterally sustained, if there was service, so as to fix jurisdiction of the court as to the person of the defendant.2

Effect of Appeals. State Construction Conformed to. In a suit upon a judgment of another State, the court wherein the suit is proceeding will give the same effect to an appeal or writ of error from the judgment sued on, taken therefrom in the State where rendered, as is given by the laws of such State. When such effect is ascertained it is the duty of the court where the judgment is sued on to allow the same result there; and the construction put upon the statute or laws of a State by its own courts will be conformed to in construing these laws in the courts of other States, and accordingly enforced when brought in question therein; unless the effect would be to violate the rights of its own citizens, or the settled policy of the State.4

Dormant Judgment. Revival of Scire Facias. Though an action will not lie in the courts of one State on a judgment of a court of another State which is dormant, yet if the dormant judgment be revived by scire facias it is then so reinstated that suit thereon may be maintained, and therefore may be maintained in another State. 5

If in the State where rendered the time limited for revival by

'Kinnier v. Kinnier, 45 N. Y. 535; Norwood v. Cobb, 20 Tex. 588; Cherry v. Speight, 28 Tex. 503; Freeman on Judgments, § 560, et seq. But the rec

ord of such judgment may be contradicted as to facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction, and if it be shown that such facts did not exist, the record will be a nullity notwithstanding it may recite that they did exist. See Marx v. Fore, 51 Mo. 569; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N. Y., 30; People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247.

scire facias expire, and proceedings for revival be thereafter instituted and limitation be not pleaded, then judgment of revivor avoids the statute of limitation, and the statute begins to run against the new or revived judgment only from the date thereof.1 Therefore, it is held that if suit be brought in a different State on the revived judgment, then for defendant to avail himself of the plea of limitation as resting on the statute of the forum, the length of time required as a bar by that statute must have run between the day of the rendition of the judgment of revival and the day of the commencement of the suit. If, on the other hand, the law of the State where suit is brought allows the pleading of the statute of the State where the judgment was rendered as a bar to the action when the time limited therein has fully run, then, although that time may have run as to the original judgment, yet when the judgment sued on has been so revived, then as to the revived judgment the statute of the State where rendered only runs from the revival thereof, and to avail defendant of that statute the full time required in that State must have run between the time of judgment of revival and commencement of the suit thereon.

Action on Bastardy. Judgment of another State. It is held, in Indiana, that an action of debt will lie on the judgment of an Ohio court in a case of bastardy, adjudging the defendant therein to pay a sum certain in installments, and in default of payment giving execution for the support of the defendant's illegitimate child. The ruling thus is predicated on the fact of the Ohio and Indiana statutes on the subject being alike, this being shown by pleading and proving the statute of Ohio. This ruling was on demurrer. In the same case the action was defeated, however, on the ground of a failure to show in the declaration any right of the plaintiff to receive the money sued for as guardian or otherwise. 5

Jurisdiction, Inquiry into. But although inquiry may be made into the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment sued on in an action on a judgment of a court of another State,

'Morton v. Valentine, 15 La. Ann.

150.

Morton v. Valentine, 15 La. Ann. 150; Orman v. Neville, 14 La. Ann. 393.

3 Morton v. Valentine, 15 La. Ann. 150.

4 Stanfield v. Fetters, 7 Blackf. 558. Ibid.

where nothing appears either way in the record as to service on or jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, yet this cannot be done in such action on a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, the record of which, duly authenticated, shows service upon the defendant. 1

Judgments of Justices of the Peace. In some of the United States such judgments have all the force and effect of judgments of courts of record. They are not open to collateral attack and are considered as absolute verity. Suits upon them, in those States, are, therefore, governed by the same rule as applies to foreign judgments of courts of record. As a general thing, however, justice judgments are not so considered. Being rendered by courts of only local and very limited and prescribed jurisdiction, having no clerk nor seal, they are not governed by the act of Congress which provides for the authentication of judicial records and proceedings. Their effect, therefore, in other States. would seem to be the same as that accorded judgments rendered by foreign countries. They must be shown to have been rendered by courts having jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, to have been authorized by the laws of the State where rendered. The judgment itself must be proved as a fact like a foreign judg

ment.3

II. ACTIONS ON DECREES OF OTHER STATES.

Same as on Judgments at Law. Decrees of courts of chancery for the payment of money made with full jurisdiction of the parties are of the same dignity and binding force as judgments at law; and actions and suits thereon may be maintained accordingly. Hence an action at law lies in the United States circuit court on a decree for money made by a State court, where the

1 Wescott v. Brown, 13 Ind. 83; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Welch v. Sykes, 3 Gilm. 197; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McL. 473; Roberts v. Caldwell, 5 Dana, 512; Newcomb v. Peck, 17 Vt. 302: Westervelt o. Lewis, 2 McL. 511; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481; Freeman on Judgments, § 560 et seq., where this subject will be found discussed and many cases thereon cited.

Farr v. Ladd, 37 Vt. 158; Billings v. Russell, 23 Penn. St. 191; Fox . Hoyt, 12 Conn. 497; Turner v. Ireland, 11 Humph. 447; Stevens v. Mangum, 27 Miss. 481.

3 Carpenter v. Pike, 30 Vt. 81; Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. 203; Danforth v. Thompson, 34 Iowa, 243; Greenleaf on Evidence, § 513.