Davidson v. Sharpe

• Decision Date: 31 December 1845
• Citation: 6 Ired. 14,28 N.C. 14
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: THOMAS DAVIDSON v. JOHN M. SHARPE.

6 Ired. 14

28 N.C. 14

THOMAS DAVIDSON

v.JOHN M. SHARPE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1845.

Where a decree or judgment in another State is produced in evidence in one of our Courts, it is not necessary to shew, by any extrinsic evidence, that the judgment or decree was warranted by the laws of the State in which it was pronounced. The judgment or decree itself is the highest evidence of that fact.

A judgment or decree, pronounced in any State, against an inhabitant of another State, upon whom process in the suit has not been served, is only binding in the State, in which such judgment or decree has been rendered.

Where a bond is offered in evidence, and the obligor offers to shew that the bond has been declared fraudulent by a Court of Equity, and that it should be surrendered, the evidence is inadmissible, because the bond, being uncancelled, is still good at law, and the obligor can only proceed in equity to enforce the decree by process of contempt.

The case of Irby v. Wilson, 1 Dev. and Bat. Eq. 568. cited and approved,

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Iredell County, at the special term in November, 1845, his Honor Judge DICK presiding.

This action is debt on a bond, and the plea is a set-off of a larger sum, due on a bond of the plaintiff to the defendant. On the trial, the defendant proved the latter bond as pleaded; and the plaintiff then offered to give in evidence the transcript of the proceedings in a suit, instituted in a Court of Equity in the State of Tennessee, upon the bill of the present plaintiff against the defendant, in which the Court declared that the bond, now pleaded as a set-off, was obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff fraudulently, and decreed that the defendant should deliver the same into that Court to be cancelled.

The defendant objected to receiving the evidence, because it appeared in the transcript, that the defendant did not appear in the cause, and had not been served with a process in the suit, and that he was not a citizen or resident in Tennessee, but was a citizen and inhabitant of North Carolina; and that the Court proceeded to make the decree upon an order, taking the matter of the plaintiff's bill as confessed, by reason of the default of the defendant in not appearing therein, after a notification to do so, which was published, for a certain period, in a newspaper printed in Tennessee.

The presiding Judge was of opinion, that it was necessary to the admission of the evidence, that the plaintiff should otherwise prove, that by the law of Tennessee, the Court was authorised to make a decree against a nonresident person upon such publication. The plaintiff did not offer any further evidence, and was non-suited; and he appealed.

No Counsel in this Court for the plaintiff.

Boyden, for the defendant .

RUFFIN, C. J.

The Court thinks the defendant...