The state legislatures cannot annul the judgments nor determine the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.-The United States v. Judge Peters, 2 Condens. Rep., 202.

The local laws of a State can never confer jurisdiction on the courts of the United States. They can only furnish rules to ascertain the rights of the parties, and thus to assist in the administration of the proper reme dies where the jurisdiction is vested by the laws of the United States.Steamboat Orleans v. Phœbus, 11 Peters' S. C. Rep., 175.

OF JUDGMENTS IN SISTER STATES.

1. What effect is given, in the courts of one state, to a judgment rendered in a court of another state of the Union?

The Constitution of the United States, Art. 4, Sec. 1, provides that full faith and credit shall be given, in each state, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Accordingly, by Act of May 26, 1790, Sec. 1, it is enacted, that the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such 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.

By another act on the subject passed on the 27th March, 1804, Sec. 1, all records and exemplifications of official books, which are or may be kept in any public office of any state, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any other court or office in any other State, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books and the seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with the certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept, or of the Governor, Secretary of State, the Chancellor, or the keeper of the great seal of the state, that the said attestation is in due form, and given by the proper officer.

2. What is understood by "due form?"

The due form intended by the act, is that of the state or of the court whence the record comes.- Craig v. Brown, 1 Peters' S. C. Rep., 35. Serg. Const. Law, 388.

If the clerk attest that the foregoing is truly taken from the records

of the court, and the presiding judge certify it to be in due form, it is conclusive, and no other evidence can be admitted to show that it is not in due form. Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408. 1 Burr's Trial, 98. Church v. Hubbard, 1 Condens. Rep., 395. Lessee of Griffith v. Tenckhouser, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep., 418. Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C. Rep., 215. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheaton, 392. Drummond's Adm. v. Magruder's Trustees, 9 Cranch, 122.

By the record certified in the manner prescribed, such proof of the judgment is of as high a nature as inspection of the record would be.Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481. Furguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408. It is now settled that the judgment of a state court shall have the same credit, validity, and effect, in any state, which it had in the state where it was pronounced; and that whatever pleas would be good in a suit thereon in such state, and no others, can be pleaded in any court in the United States.-Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheaton, 234.

It is therefore held, that when the defendant had full notice, and gave bail, a judgment in a state court is conclusive, and in a suit upon that judgment the defendant cannot plead nil debet.—Armstrong v. Carson's Executors, 2 Dall., 302. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheaton, 334. For the record imports an absolute verity.-Field v. Gibbs, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep.,

155.

And if in a suit commenced by attachment, and judgment recovered, the defendant had personal notice of the suit, and afterwards appeared and made defence, any objection to the proceeding is thereby waived, and nil debet cannot be pleaded.-Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheaton, 129. Phelps v. Holker, 1 Dall., 261. Killburn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. Rep., 37. Kibbe v. Kibbe, Kirby, 110. Betts v. Death, Addison's Rep., 265. Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheaton, 100.

No action will lie at law on the 'decree of a court of equity, for the payment of money.-Hugh v. Higgs, 8 Wheaton, 697. Contra 9 Serg. & Rawle, 252. Where an action of debt was maintained, there being no court of equity in Pennsylvania.-Evan's Adm. v. Satem. Dubois v. Dubois, 6 Cowen's Rep., 490.

The whole of the record that relates to the subject matter must be certified.-Griffith's Lessee v. Evans, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep., 166.

3. How is the act of Congress considered in reference to the federal courts?

It applies only to the records of the state courts, and not to those of the United States courts. With regard to these, if offered in evidence m a state court, it remains with such court to decide on the sufficiency of the evidence. It was, therefore, held by the supreme court of New York, in an action brought on a judgment rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, that on the plea of nul tiel record, a record under the seal of such circuit court, certified by the clerk as a copy, was sufficient evidence: that being the ordinary way of certifying such record in Massachusetts, instead of the technical exem plification.-Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Cas., 119.

To bring a judgment within the act, the court must not only have jurisdiction of the cause, but of the parties. A debtor living in M., may have goods, effects, or credits in N., where the creditor lives. The creditor may lawfully attach these, pursuant to the laws of that state, in the hands of the bailiff, factor, or trustee, or garnishee of his debtor; and on recovering judgment, those goods, &c., may lawfully be applied to satisfy the judgment; and the bailiff, &c., sued in M. for those goods shall be protected by the judgment in N. If, however, those goods are insufficient to satisfy the judgment, and the creditor should sue an action on that judgment, in another state, he must fail; because the defendant was not personally amenable to the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment.Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. Rep., 462. Killburn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. Rep., 3. Robinson v. Ward's Ex., 86 Ibid, 85. Taylor v. Phelps, 1 Gill & Johns. Rep., 492. Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wendell's Rep., 447. Jacobs v. Hull, 12 Mass. Rep., 25.

To give jurisdiction of the person to the court, in any case, the party must have had due notice of the suit.-Hitchcock v. Aikins, 1 Caines' Rep., 466. Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall., 302. Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. Rep., 232.

4. What is the rule as to justices of the peace under the above provision. of Congress?

That the judgment of a justice of the peace is entitled to full faith in another state, if it be proved the subject-matter was within his jurisdiction; and the proceedings, in all respects, conformable to the statute produced.Thomas v. Robinson, 3 Wendell, 367. Contra, 2 Pick. Mass. Rep., 448. 4 N. H. Rep., 450.

To an action of debt in New York, the defendant pleaded in bar, a judgment recovered in Vermont, for the same cause; and that execution had issued there, which had been satisfied by an extent and appraisement of lands, averring that the proceedings were according to the laws of that state; upon demurrer the court held the plea bad, in not setting forth the statute of Vermont, authorising those proceedings.-Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wendell, 75. Pearsall v. Dwight, 2 Mass. Rep., 34. Legg v. Legg, 8 Mass. Rep., 35.

5. How are judgments in penal actions regarded, in other states than those in which they are obtained?

An action may be maintained on a judgment recovered in a qui tam action in another state for a penalty.-Healy v Root, Adm., 11 Pick. Rep.,

389.

6. How are judgments in criminal cases considered in sister states?

The clause in the constitution has no effect in criminal cases; and in respect to them, the relation of the states to one another is left wholly unaffected by the constitution. Therefore, the conviction of an infamous crime in a foreign country, or in another state, does not (as to

ts consequent disabilities) follow, or attach to the person in another state. -Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. Rep., 547. Gregory et al. 14. Ib.

499.

This is not a settled doctrine in foreign jurisprudence, though undoubtedly the rule of the Common Law, and of the English courts. Lord Loughborough held, in Folliott v. Ogden, 1 Hen. Black's Rep., 135, that penal laws of foreign countries are strictly local, and affect nothing more than they can reach, and can be seized by their authority. A fugitive who passes hither, comes with all his transitory rights. It is a general principle, that the penal laws of one country cannot be taken notice of in another. Wolf v. Oxholm, 6 Maule & Selw., 99. Scovill v. Canfield, 14 John's Rep. 338. The State v. Knight, Taylor's N. C. Rep., 65. But many foreign Jurists contend that the state or condition of a person at his domicil accompanies him everywhere. See post, Penal Law, and Story's Com. on the Conflict of Laws, 516, et seq.

7. May a Court of Equity give relief on a bill, quia timet, against a judgment of a sister state, where that judgment is not put in suit in the state in which the court sits?

Under some circumstances it may, when the parties are within the jurisdiction of the court: as where the defence was of an equitable nature, or, if legal, such as was not, or could not, by ordinary means, be known to the defendant upon the trial; or if, through some uncontrollable circumstances, he was deprived of the benefit of such testimony, when it was a legal defence, and known to him, equity will give relief, quia timet.—W'inchester v. Jackson, Evans et al., 3 Hayward's Rep., 305.

Although a judgment in a court of a state is not to be regarded in the courts of her sister states as a foreign judgment, or as merely primâ facie evidence of debt to sustain an action of debt upon the judgment, it is to be considered only distinguishable from a foreign judgment in this, that by the first section of the fourth article of the constitution, and by the Act of May 26th, 1790, Sec. 1, the judgment is conclusive on the merits, to which full faith and credit shall be given when authenticated as the Act of Congress has prescribed.-McElmoyle v. Cohen's Admr., 13 Peters' S. C. Rep., 312.

By the law of Congress the judgment is made a debt of record, not examinable upon its merits; but it does not carry with it into another etate, the efficacy of a judgment upon property, or upon persons, to be enforced by execution. To give it the force of a judgment in another etate, it must be made a judgment there; and can only be executed in the latter as its laws may permit.—Ibid.

OF DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS AND THEIR EFFECTS.

1. What is the effect of a judgment, as regards the matter in dispute? Judgments and decrees are conclusive between the parties and their privies. Thus, where a mortgagee brought an action to recover posses

sion, and the defendant set up usury, but the plaintiff showing a judgment recovered on the mortgage note, in a suit in which the defendant pleaded non assumpsit with a notice of usury; held that this concluded the defendant. Betts v. Starr, 5 Conn. Rep, 550. Willey v. Paulk, 6 Ibid., 74.

The decree of a district court of the United States, in respect to the title in question, if directly decided, is conclusive of the title of the party in whose favor it is established.-Denison v. Hyde, 6 Conn. Rep., 508.

The general rule is, that when one is barred by a judgment, he is barred as to that for ever.-Ferrer's Case, 6 Co., 7.

2. What is the rule as to the conclusiveness of a judgment in an action of ejectment?

That one judgment in ejectment is no bar to another action in ejectment. The reason is this; that as the action is brought to recover pos session of lands founded upon a right of entry, the party claiming is supposed to have entered and sealed a lease, and the lessee brings the action; this demise, and every such entry and demise, although a fiction in law, is to give a new right of action. But a judgment in ejectment is as conclusive as any other judgment, except in another action of ejectment.— Van Wyck v. Seward, 2 Edw., Ch. Rep. 327. Jackson v. Seward, 5 Cowen, 67.

Where a promissory note is given for the payment of goods sold, and judgment is recovered on the note, the party giving the note may have an action to recover an over-payment by mistake, independent of the judgment.-Whitcomb v. Williams, 4 Pick. Rep., 228. Shearrer v Fowler, 1 Mass. Rep., 22. Row v. Smith, 16 Mass. Rep., 306.

3. What is the effect of judgments upon third parties?

In some cases a judgment will be evidence of a debt, even against strangers as where a sheriff being sued for an escape, notified the bail, and all aided in the defence. Judgment being recovered against the sheriff, it was held conclusive in respect to the sureties; and the verdict is evidence without the judgment.-Thasher v. Haines, 2 N. H. Rep., 443. Kipp v. Brigham, 6 Johns. Rep., 158. 7 Ibid., 168. But in general a judgment is not conclusive evidence of debt against strangers.-Pierce v. Jackson, 6 Mass. Rep., 242.

A judgment against the debtor is conclusive against the sheriff in an action for escape on mesne process as to the amount of the debt.Wright v. Dekline, 1 Peters' C. C. Rep., 199. Patten v. Halsted, Coxe's Rep., 277.

A judgment will not enure by way of estoppel, except between parties and privies.-Lord v. Baldwin, 6 Pick. Mass. Report, 38. Burgess v. Lane, 3 Greenl. Rep., 165. Worcester v. Green, 2 Pick. Rep., 425. 5 Johns. Ch. Rep., 320. Adams v. Barnes, 17 Mass. Rep., 365 Trevivian v. Lawrence, 3 Salk., 151. Co. Lit., 227. 4 Co. Rep., 53.

A judgment in favor of the freedom of a slave has no effect against a party, who does not claim under the party against whom the former judg. ment was recovered.-Kitty v. Fitzhugh, 4 Rand., 600. Andrews v. Herring, 5 Mass. Rep., 210. Preston v. Crofut, 1 Conn. Rep., 527. Smith v. Saxton, 6 Pick., 483.