7. FRANCIS V. THE OCEAN INS. Co. Oct. T. 1826, 6 Cow. N. Y. Rep. 404. The sentence of a foreign court, condemning a vessel, was To the held to be prima facie evidence; but not conclusive. The case was assumpsit on a policy of insurance, upon a British ship, by an American underwriter, with a warranty against seizure for illicit trade; and the defence was, that she was seized in a British port, and there condemned for illicit trade; and the court held, that the condemnation was not conclusive. Curia. Sutherland, J. The important question was, whether the plaintiff being a British subject, and his vessel having been condemned by a British court, can recover in our courts for an act, done by or under the authority of his own state. There is a class of English cases, which affirm the doctrine, in relation to the legislative acts of a goverment; but in no case has it been extended to the decisions of courts of justice. Where a seizure and condemnation is relied upon, the party availing himself of the sentence, must not only show the proceedings of the court, but the law which justified the proceedings. The seizure in this case, was of a British vessel, sailing under a British flag, and belonging to a British subject, for a violation of British municipal regulations, or navigation laws. It was made upon the high seas; for the sovereign authority may lawfully seize the property of its own subjects upon the high seas. But the defendant in this case was bound to prove the existence of the law condemning the trade. The law must be proved by the defendant. 8. CHURCH V. HUBBART, 2 Cranch U. S. Rep. 236, BUTRICH, ET same effect in New York. The case stated, that defendant, to prove that the trade was Foreign illicit, offered a copy of a law of Portugal, entitled, &c.; and to laws, edicts and judg prove that the vessel was seized for illicit trade, the defendant ments must be proved produced a paper purporting to be a copy of the sentence of the governor of Para, on the brig A. The judgment was reversed best evi in that case, on the ground that the edicts and judgment were peach the justice of them, or to show that they are irregularly or unduly obtained; 3 ib. 353. But in Martin v. Nicolls, 3 Simon n. 458, it seems, that it was held that foreign judgments were not to be re-examined. by the the dence. If the court had jurisdic ma facie to not properly proved. Foreign laws are facts; and as such must be proved by oath, or other authority as high. In the case cited from Massachusetts, the judgment in Nova Scotia was proved by a copy, certified by the clerk, and the affidavit of D. who swore that he assisted in comparing the copy with the record, and saw the clerk attest and affix the seal. The court held, that this evidence was sufficient for the purpose for which it was produced. 9. BUTTRICK V. ALLEN, Oct. T. 1811, 8 Mass. Rep. 273. The action was assumpsit on a foreign judgment; and the tion it is suf Court held the judgment to be prima facie evidence of the debt; ficient pri and that the question of jurisdiction was open to the defendant. justify pro If the court had jurisdiction, it will be sufficient to justify proceedings un ceedings under it; but if the want of jurisdiction appear from the record, or is made to appear by evidence, there must be a trial upon the merits; for there can be no doubt the defendant has all the benefits he would be entitled to in an action upon the original cause. der it. A foreign judgment is good as a justification 10. 2 Kent's Com. 120; BISSELL V. BRIGGS, 9 Mass. Rep. 462. A foreign judgment carried into effect, is considered an absolute bar to another suit for the same cause, and between the same parties. Or, in the language of the Chief Justice, in Bissell v. Briggs, when the judgment of a foreign court is produced for the purpose of justifying any thing done in execution of it, it will be conclusive for that purpose, if the court had jurisdiction, and the regularity or propriety of the proceedings can never be questioned. The clause stitution of 11. COMMONWEALTH V. GREEN, 17 Mass. Rep. 547; ORY, ET AL. 14 ib. 499. V. GREG The clause in the constitution of the United States has no efin the con fect on judgments upon criminal suits; and that, in this respect, the U. 3. r the relation of the states to each other, is left wholly unaffected lating to the faith and by the constitution. Therefore, the conviction of an infamous * In Martin v. Nicolls, 3 Simons, 458. The question was in relation to a bill for a discovery and to examine witnesses to set aside the judgment recovered abroad; but it seems the V. Ch. held that the foreign judgment was not examinable in the common law courts. crime in a foreign country, or in another state, does not render credit to be the person an incompetent witness in the courts here. given to judgments, has no effect criminal In the last case cited, the defendants being indicted for mur- on judg der; and they excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ments upon ground that they were prisoners of war and subjects of Great suits. Britain, and not triable by municipal, but by court martial; but the court overruled the plea. 12. LINCOLN V. BATTELLE, 6 Wend. N. Y. Rep. 475. property au A foreign statute or judicial record must be properly authen- Must be ticated under the seal of the state; or otherwise a sworn copy thenticated. must be produced. It seems, that the public seal of a state, when affixed to a judicial record, or the exemplification of a law, will prove itself. XII. OF JUDGMENTS OF SISTER STATES. (A) IN GENERAL. 1. ART. 4th, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE U. S. Sect. 1. THE State judg ments aro entitled to full faith The former provides that, "full faith and credit shall be given, in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial re- and credit. cords of every other state;" and the constitution also gives to Congress the power to prescribe how they shall be proved, and to declare their effect. Accordingly, the act of Congress having prescribed the manner of proof, declares, "that the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given them in every court within the United States, as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state, from whence said records are or shall be taken." 2. DAVISON V. CHAMPION, 7 Conn. Rep. 244; EX PARTE, TOBIAS ror. of the U. S. courts are binding un til reversed. But a state court has no Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the jurisdiction United States, except in a court established by itself: and no of an of fence a gainst the U. s. The several states are part of the criminal jurisdiction can be tranferred to the state tribunals. Therefore, debt for a penalty for carrying letters contrary to the law of congress, does not lie in a state court; and a judgment so recovered will be reversed on error, although no plea to the jurisdiction was interposed. 3. COMMONWEALTH V. GREEN, 17 Mass. Rep. 543; HAMPDEN V. The several states without the constitution of the United foreign; ex States, are entirely independent of each other, and as commoncepting so far as the ly foreign one to the other, as any separate government. Whatof the U. S. ever changes exists in this relation, must be sought for in the constitution of the U. S., and the laws of congress made pursugress pursu ant thereto. constitution and the laws of con ant thereto have alter tion. The act of congress, which was passed soon after the organied that rela zation of the goverment under the constitution, viz. in 1790, in execution of the power contained in the constitution, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every state, and the congress may prescribe the manner, in which such acts, records and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect thereof," declares that judgments in states, shall have the same 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 shall be taken. Chief jus tice Par Courts in the different states, and judges in the state, have varied in their construction of the constitution, and of the act of congress upon this subject: some holding that the effect, by which the legal import and obligation of judgments of another state, is still left open to be decided by the common law; others that the terms "faith and credit," as used in the act of congress, mean the same thing as the term "effect," and that this effect being the same in the state where they are used, as in the state from whence they come, they are in all respects like domestic judgments, as to their conclusiveness against the party who is the subject of them. 4. BISSELL V. BRIGGS, 9 Mass. Rep. 462. This was debt upon a judgment recovered in the S. C. in N. Hampshire. Plea, nil debet, and not guilty, and issue joined to struction of the country. sons' con the constitu The cause was taken from the jury and submitted to the court laws of con in respect to the question raised--whether it was competent for tion and defendant to impeach the judgment proving that plaintiff ought gress-A not to have recovered judgment for any damages, &c. Parsons, C. J. A foreign judgment may be produced here to justify a party in the execution of that judgment in the country in which it was rendered; or to obtain the execution of it from our courts. If the foreign court which rendered judgment, had jurisdiction of the cause, the justification is admitted, and the regularity of the proceedings is not to be drawn into question. But if the foreign court had not jurisdiction of the cause, the justification will be rejected, without inquiring into the merits of the judgment. In such case, therefore, the judgment may be impeached, by shewing that the court rendering it had no jurisdiction of the cause. When produced by a party to obtain execution of it here, the question of jurisdiction of the court rendering it is still open to inquiry. And if a defect of jurisdiction appears, the party producing the judgment must fail; but if the court had jurisdiction. of the cause, yet the courts here will not execute the judgment, without first allowing an inquiry into the merits. The jndgment of a foreign court is by our laws therefore, only presumptive evidence of a debt, or as prima facie evidence of a sufficient consideration of a promise, where such court had jurisdiction of the cause; and if an action of debt be sued on such judgment, nil debet is the general issue; or, if it be made the consideration of a promise, the general issue is non assumpsit. On these issues defendant may impeach the justice of the judgment, by evidence relative to that point. On these issues, also, defendant may by proper evidence, prove that the judgment was rendered by a foreign court, which had no jurisdiction." Before the ratification of the confederation of the United States, all the courts of the several provinces were foreign to each other, and judgments rendered by any one of them were considered by the others as foreign judgments. The federal constitution declares, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state, to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state ;" and power is given to the congress, to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings might be proved, and the effect thereof. By an act of the first congress, C. 38., this power was executed and it is therein enacted, that records and judicial proceeding, authenticated as in that act is prescribeds, shall have full faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United leading case |