dle v. Wilkins, I Pet. (U. S.) 686; Montford v. Hunt, Wash. C. C. (U. S.) 28; Reed v. Ross, 1 Baldw. (U. S. C. C.) 36.

A judgment of a United States court sitting in a particular State occupies in that State the same footing as a domestic judgment of a superior court of record of that State. Turrell v. Warren, 14 Minn. 9; Earl v. Raymond, 4 McLean (U. S.) 233; Shepherd v. Commrs. of Ross Co., 7 Ohio 271; Wandling v. Straw, 25 W. Va. 692, 705; Thompson v. Lee Co., 22 Iowa 206; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 182; Town of St. Albans v. Bush, 4 Vt. 58.

They only have the effect of a sister State judgment in New York. Tarbell v. Briggs, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 207; Davis . Bruns, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 648.

A marshal's sale of land under execution from a United States court made before the door of the United States court house, and not in the county where the land is situate, is void, and may be attacked therefor collaterally. Moody's Heirs v. Moeller, 72 Tex. 635 (following Sinclair v. Stanley, 64 Tex. 67); Jenners v. Pomeroy, 9 Ind. 461.

1. The judgment of a federal court is within the above legislative provision when relied upon in the courts of any State in the Union. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 578; Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3.

A judgment of a United States court will not be held to be a foreign judg-. ment in an action thereon in a State other than the one where the United States court was sitting. Thompson v. Lee Co., 22 Iowa 206; McCauley v. Hargroves, 48 Ga. 50; Niblett v. Scott, 4 La. An. 246.

There are some early cases holding that the judgment of a federal court is a domestic judgment in the courts of any State. Adams v. Way, 33 Conn. 419; Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. C. (N. Y.) 119; Williams v. Wilkes, 14 Pa. St. 228.

Congress has passed several acts defining the effect to be given to judgments acquired in United States court. Thus by act of June 1st, 1872 (Rev. Stat. U. S., §§ 915, 916), a plaintiff in a federal court is entitled to similar reme

dies against defendant's property, "which are now provided by the laws of the State in which such court is held," and by act of August 1st, 1888 (25 U. S. Stat. L. 357), it is enacted that judgments and decrees of United States courts shall be liens on property throughout the State wherein such court is sitting in the same manner as judgments rendered by a court of general jurisdiction of such State, but it is provided that the State may require such judgment to be docketed in a particular manner and in a certain office.

By an act passed in 1889 in North Carolina, such judgments are required to be docketed in the county where the lands are situate, against which a lien is desired; without such docketing it has been held that no lien was acquired. Alsop v. Moseley (N. Car.), 10 S. E. Rep. 124.

2. State Courts.-The judgment of a State court will be regarded by the federal courts sitting within the territorial limits of the State in which the same is rendered as a domestic judgment. Owens v. Gotzian (U. S. C. C. Minn.), 16 Am. L. Reg., N. S. 181; s. c., 4 Dillon (U. S.) 436: Wilkinson v. Yale, 6 McLean (U. S.) 16. Compare Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 108 U. S. 18.

Such a judgment is impeachable in the same way as a sister State judgment. Swift . Meyers, 13 Sawy. (Ŭ. S. C. C.) 583.

The question may, perhaps, depend upon the nature of the service of process. Thus: A State court entered a decree for the removal of a cloud upon the title to land within the State against a nonresident who had been summoned by publication only. The nonresident having brought suit in a United States court sitting within said State against the plaintiff in the suit in the State court to recover the land, the decree of the State court was pleaded in bar. The decree was held to be no bar, GRAY, J., saying: "Such a decree being in personam merely, can only be supported against a person who is not a citizen or resident of the State in which it is rendered, by actual service upon him within its jurisdiction; and constructive service by publication in a

of the other States.

justice of the peace is disputed.2

4

newspaper is not sufficient. The courts of the State might, perhaps, feel bound to give effect to the service made as directed by its statutes. But no court, deriving its authority from another government will recognize a merely constructive service as bringing the person within the jurisdiction of the court. The judgment would be allowed no force in the courts of any other State; and it is of no greater force as against a citizen of another State in a court of the United States, though held within the State in which the judgment was rendered. Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151. 155. Compare Hollingsworth v. Barbour, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 466; Boswell v. Otis, 9 How. (U. S.) 336.

1. The judgment of State court is within the above legislative provision when relied upon in a United States court sitting in another State. Amory v. Amory, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 266; Walser v. Seligman, 21 Blatchf. (U. S.) 130; Claflin . Mc Dermott, 12 Fed. Rep. 375; Field v. Gibbs, 1 Pet. C. C. (U. S.) 155.

In a proceeding to enforce a liability created by a State statute, the courts of the United States give to a judgment of a State court the same effect, either as evidence or as cause of action, which is given to it in like proceedings in the courts of the State whose laws are invoked in the enforcement. Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452.

2. Justices' Judgments.-The judg ment of a justice of the peace in another State, while not within the act of congress as to the authentication of records, is when proved within the provision of the constitution. Bissell v. Edwards, 5 Day (Conn.) 263; Draggoo . Graham, 9 Ind. 212; Thomas v. Robinson, Wend. (N. Y.) 267; Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 Ohio 545; Pelton v. Platner, 13 Ohio 209; Stockwell v. Coleman, 10 Ohio St. 33; Blodgett v. Jordan, 6 Vt. 580; Carpentier v. Pier, 30 Vt. 81; Beal v. Smith, 14 Tex. 305.

Such a judgment is not within the above provision, but is, like a foreign judgment, simply prima facie evidence of a debt. McElfatrick v. Taft, 10 Bush (Ky.) 160; Warren v. Flagg, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 448; Robinson v. Prescott, 4 N. H. 450; Taylor v. Barron, 30 N. H. 78; Clark v. Parsons, Rice (S. Car.) 16; Evans v. Cleary, 125 Pa. St. 204; Graham v. Grigg, 3 Harr. (Del.) 408.

See the act of February 27th, 1845. § 4, P. L. 73, in Pennsylvania, Br. Purd. Dig. (1883), p. 980, § 41.

When by the laws of a State the transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace filed in a court of record of general jurisdiction is to be treated as a judgment of said court, the duly authenticated record of said court, when sued upon in another State, is entitled to the same faith and credit as though the judgment had been originally obtained there. Rowley v. Carron, 117 Pa. St. 52.

3. Lis Pendens.-Lis pendens in another State, or in a United States court is no bar to an action in personam. Seevers v. Clement, 28 Md. 426; Wilcox v. Kassick, 2 Mich. 165; People v. State Treasurer, 24 Mich. 468; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485; Shelton v. Johnson, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 672. See CONFLICT OF LAWS, par. 4, in Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, p. 535, and LIS PENDENS.

4. The judgment of the court of another State must be certain, or capable of being made so. Fritz v. Fisher, 5 Clark (Pa.) 350; s. c., 3 Am. L. Reg. 243.

5. An action cannot be maintained on an interlocutory order of a court of another State. McClung v. McClung, II Weekly Notes (Pa.) 122.

If by the law of a State where a judgment is obtained an appeal does not stay proceedings on the judgment in that State, the pendency of such an appeal is no bar to an action on the judgment in another State. Faber v.

Hovey, 117 Mass. 107. See Merchants' Ins. Co. v. De Wolf, 33 Pa. St. 45.

1. A judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of another State may be proved by duly certified copies of all the papers in the case, with a like certified copy of a record entitled "judgment roll on failure to answer, which simply contains the names of the court, county and parties, with an affidavit of the plaintiff's counsel that no answer or demurrer has been served upon him, and after reciting the service of the summons and copy of the complaint on one of the defendants, the failure to serve a demurrer or answer, and the assessment of damages by the clerk, sets forth that it was adjudged that the plaintiffs recover the said sum of the defendants with costs, and that execution issue against the sole property of the defendant upon whom service was made, and the joint property of both defendants. Knapp v. Abell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 485.

In another case, however, where the record only contained the memorandum of a clerk noting judgment instead of the solemn act of the court as required at common law, the judgment record was held of no effect. Hinson v. Ball, 20 Ala. 298.

2. Penal Judgments.-The Supreme Court of the United States cannot entertain an original action to compel an insurance corporation of one State to pay to another State the amount of a judgment recovered by the latter for a penalty imposed by its statute upon such insurance corporation for doing business in such State, without having first deposited with the proper officer of the State the statement of its property and business required by such statute. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265.

"The rule that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another, applies not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all suits in favor of the State for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violation of statutes for the protection of its revenue or other municipal laws, and to all judgments for such penalties. If this were not so, all that would be necessary to give ubiquitous

effect to a penal law would be to put the claim for a penalty into the shape of a judgment." GRAY, J.. in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265. See Chase v. Curtis, 1:3 U. S. 452.

A judgment in a qui tam action for penalties incurred by a violation of a State statute against usury will not be enforced in another State, though the court rendering the judgment had jurisdiction over the defendant, and the judgment in that State was good. Bryant v. Ela, 1 N. H. 396. Contra, Healy v. Root, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 389.

But when judgment is recovered on forfeited recognizances taken in corsequence of an alleged violation of the penal laws of a State, such judgment will be enforced in another State. Spencer v. Brockway, 1 Ohio 259; s. c., 13 Am. Dec. 615.

So will a money judgment for detention of goods recovered in an action of replevin. Johnson v. Butler, 2 Iowa 535.

So will a judgment for a penalty in a bastardy case. State v. Helmer, 21 Iowa 370.

For the extradition of criminals see EXTRADITION, vol. 7, p. 598.

3. Judgments Relating to Real Estate. -The judgment of a court of one State declaring the existence of a lien on real estate situate in another State, will not be enforced in the latter State, because real estate is governed by the lex rei site. Short v. Galway, 83 Ky. 501; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 168.

A judgment by a court in X State that a deed given for lands in Y State is void. is without the jurisdiction of that court. Davis v. Headley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115.

So a decree of the circuit court of the United States directing the conveyance of lands in the State where the court is sitting, does not operate as a conveyance. Shepherd v. Commrs. of Ross Co., 7 Ohio 271.

A probate court in one State may not authorize the sale of lands of a decedent situate in another State for the payment of his debts. Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 627.

Where all the estate of a decedent is included in a proceeding in partition in State A, the decree is insufficient to

pass the title to any land in State B. But in a proceeding in State B by the party to whom said land was allotted to compel a conveyance by the other parties of their interest in said land, the decree in the partition suit is prima facie good and valid as to the partition, and creates equities entitling the complainant to the conveyance prayed for. Page . McKee, 3 Bush (Ky.) 135.

1. Status of Judgment. Cases may be found in which it is held that the judgment of a State court, when introduced as evidence in the tribunals of another State, are to be regarded in all respects as domestic judgments. On the other hand, another class of cases might be cited in which it is held that such judgments in the courts of another State are foreign judgments, and that as such the judgments are open to every enquiry to which other foreign judgments may be subjected under the rules of the common law. Neither class of these decisions is quite correct. They certainly are not foreign judgments under the constitution and laws of congress in any proper sense, because they shall have such faith and credit given to them in every other court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from whence they were taken, nor are they domestic judgments in every sense because they are not the proper foundation of final process, except in the State where they were rendered. Besides they are open to enquiry as to the jurisdiction of the court and notice to the defendant; but in all other respects they have the same faith and credit as domestic judgments." CLIFFORD, J., in Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. (U.S.) 290, 305.

"Judgments recovered in one State of the Union, when proved in the courts of another, differ from judgments recovered in a foreign country in no other respect than that of not being re-examinable upon the merits, nor impeachable for fraud in obtaining them, if rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the

cause and of the parties." GRAY, J., in Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 4.

nor

FULLER, C. J., thus summarizes the status of judgments of other States: "This does not prevent an enquiry into the jurisdiction of the court in which a judgment is rendered, to pronounce the judgment, nor into the right of the State to exercise authority over the parties or the subject matter, whether the judgment is founded in, and impeachable for, a manifest fraud.. The constitution did not mean to con-fer any new power on the States; but simply to regulate the effect of their acknowledged jurisdiction over persons and things within their territory. It did not make the judgments of the States domestic judgments to all intents and purposes, but only gave a general validity, faith and credit to them as evidence. No execution can be issued upon such judgments without a new suit in the tribunals of other States, and they enjoy, not the right of priority or privilege or lien which they have in the State where they are pronounced, but that only which the lex, fori gives to them by its own laws in their character of foreign judgments." Cole . Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107.

2. Effect of Judgment. The judg ment of another State rendered by a court having jurisdiction is admissiblein evidence under the general issue, andhas the same force and effect when pleaded or offered in evidence as in the State where it was rendered, and no, more. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 7 Otto (U. S.) 331; Burt v. Delano, 4 Cliff. (U. S.) 611; Green v. Sanniento,, 3 Wash. (U. S. C. C.) 17; Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & My. (U. S.) 105; Lehman v. Green (Ala.), 6 S. Rep. 44;. Cannon v. Brame, 45 Ala. 262; Bank of North America 2. Wheeler, 28 Conn. 433; Skelding v. Harris, 17Weekly Notes (Pa.) 238; Gilchrist v. W. Va. O. & O. L. Co., 21 W. Va. 115; Burns v. Belknap, 22 Vt. 419; Kellam v. Toms, 38 Wis. 592.

The effect of a judicial record of a