II. BLIND CONFORMITY TO STATE RULINGS NOT REQUIRED OF UNITED STATES COURTS.

But the courts of the United States are not absolutely bound to follow or defer to the State court construction of State Constitution and laws by a blind conformity thereto, although many dicta are to be found to that effect. On the contrary, the federal reports show many cases of exception to the rule. Where there is a settled construction of the laws of a State by its highest court, and such construction has become an established precedent, it is the practice of the national courts to accept and adopt it; but where the United States court has first decided the question, it will not feel bound to retrace its course and surrender its judicial conviction by reason of a subsequent contrary State court decision.2

When State court decisions are erratic or inconsistent, the federal court is not disposed to follow the last, if contrary to its own convictions. In the case of Pease v. Peck, the United States Supreme Court, SQUIER, J., say: "And much more is this the case where, after a long course of consistent decisions, some new light suddenly springs up, or an excited public opinion has elicited new doctrines subversive of former safe precedent. Cases may exist, also, when a cause is got in a State court for the very purpose of anticipating our decision of a question known to be pending in this court. Nor do we feel bound, in any case in which a point is first raised in the courts of the United States, and has been decided in a Circuit Court, to reverse that decision, contrary to our own convictions, in order to conform to a State decision made in the meantime. Such decisions have not the character of established precedent declarative of the settled law of a State."4

1 Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595.

Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595; Leffingwell . Warren, 2 Black, 599; Gelpcke . Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Chicago v. Robbins, 2 Black, 418.

Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1.

4 18 How. 598, 599. See, also, Morgan v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1.

CHAPTER X.

ACTIONS AND SUITS ON JUDGMENTS AND DECREES.

I. ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES.

II. ACTIONS ON DECREES OF OTHER STATES.

III. ACTION IN STATE COURT AND UNITED STATES COURT, ON JUDGMENTS

OF EITHER.

IV. ACTION ON CONDITIONAL JUDGMENTS.

V.

ACTION ON JOINT JUDGMENT.

VI. ACTION ON JUDGMENT ON PENAL BOND.

VII. COMPETENCY OF THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE.

VIII. CHANGE OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

IX.

X.

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES IN PROCEEDINGS IN REM.

DEFENSES TO SUITS ON JUDGMENTS.

I. ACTIONS AND SUITS ON JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES.

State Court. Actions and suits will lie in the courts of a State upon personal judgments and decrees of the courts of another State for a fixed sum in money, where the court rendering the same had obtained jurisdiction of the defendant in such judgment;1 and so as to Territories of the United States. 2

Courts Take Notice of New States. And where a new State is created by division of an old one, the courts take notice thereof 3 and recognize such judgments and decrees, when certified and authenticated by the authorities of the new State having the custody of the record thereof.4

Judgments for money being debts of record of the highest grade, actions at law will lie thereon whether they be judgments of the same State, or of a different State, or of a court of the United

'Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65; Nation v. Johnson, 24 How. 195; Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116; Danforth v. Thompson, 34 Iowa, 243; Woodward c. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542; Dennison v. Williams, 4 Conn. 402; Ives

v. Finch, 28 Conn. 112; Freeman on Judgments, § 432.

? Ibid.

3 Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116, 118; Gilbert v. Moline Water Power & Manf. Co., 19 Iowa, 319.

Darrah v. Watson, 36 Iowa, 116.

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. 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.5 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 . 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 . Preston, 18 Iowa, 396; Lawrence v. Jarvis, 32 Ill. 30; Freeman on Judgments, $$ 564,

566.

4 Woodward v. Willard, 33 Iowa, 542, 549; Mayhew .Thatcher,6 Wheat. 129; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Freeman on Judgments, S 566.

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

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 o. 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;1 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 record 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.

3

Norwood r. Cobb, 20 Tex. 588.

Cherry v. Speight, 28 Tex. 503, 518; Shelton v. Marshall, 16 Tex. 344. See, however, where the contrary rule is held. Bank v. Wheeler, 28 Conn. 433; Taylor. Shew, 39 Cal. 536; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, 9 Casey, 45; Freeman on Judgments, § 576.

4 Powell v. De Blane, 23 Tex. 66. 5 Morton v. Valentine, 15 La. Ann. 150.