Coskery v. Wood

• Decision Date: 07 July 1898
• Citation: 52 S.C. 516,30 S.E. 475
• Parties: COSKERY et al. v. WOOD.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E. 475

52 S.C. 516

COSKERY et al.

v.WOOD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 7, 1898.

Jurisdiction —Service op Summons —Foreign Judgment —Admissibility in Evidence—Directing Verdict.

1. Where an action is begun by service of summons after order obtained for publication and attachment of defendant's property, and service of the complaint is accepted by defendant's attorney, who appeared and served an answer verified by defendant, jurisdiction of defendant is obtained.

2. Under Const. U. S. art. 4, § 1, providing that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state, a foreign judgment, properly authenticated, is prima facie evidence that it was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, in conformity to the laws of the state in which it was rendered.

3. The objection that the exemplification of the record of a foreign judgment is not properly authenticated, or the court rendering it had not jurisdiction, must be made when the record is offered in evidence.

4. The objection that the court "directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, there being testimony to be passed upon by the jury, " is too general to require consideration.

5. Where the only evidence introduced by plaintiffs is an exemplification of the record of a foreign judgment, and defendant introduces no testimony, it is proper to direct a verdict for plaintiffs.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Barnwell county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by Coskery & Davidson against J. N. Wood. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

G. W. M. Williams and Jos. M. Skinner, for appellant.

Bellinger, Townsend & O'Bannon (H. S. Jones, of counsel), for respondents.

McIVER, C. J. The following is a copy of the "case" as prepared for argument in this court, together with the exceptions for the purpose of this appeal: "This action was commenced by service of the summons after ordei obtained for publication and attachment of defendant's property in this state on the 3d day of August, 1895. Service of the complaint was accepted by the defendant's attorney, Mr. S. G. Mayfield. The defendant appeared by said attorney, and served the answer hereinafter set out; the subject of the action being an alleged judgment of the county court of Bulloch county, Ga., bearing date 3d July, 1895, in favor of these plaintiffs against this defendant. The cause came on to be heard at the November, 1897, term of Barnwell common pleas, his honor, Judge Ernest Gary, presiding, upon the pleadings and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs; the only evidence introduced being the exemplification of the judgment record from Georgia, hereinafter set forth. No other testimony was offered. At the close of theplaintiff's testimony the defendant moved for a nonsuit, claiming that, upon the showing made, the court had not acquired jurisdiction of the subject of the action nor person of the nonresident defendant. Motion refused. Defendant offered no testimony, and insisted that the plaintiffs should not recover, because they had not shown, by any testimony other than the alleged copy record, that, according to the law of Georgia, they were entitled to recover in the action, nor upon the subject of the action here as a valid subsisting legal demand against the defendant. His honor overruled the several propositions of the defendant, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the plain tiffs. Their verdict, under the directions of the judge, was rendered for the plaintiffs for $619.86, and the plaintiffs have judgment therefor against defendant. Defendant duly served notice of appeal, and excepts to the several rulings of his honor against him on the trial of the cause: (1) Because his honor should have granted a nonsuit for lack of jurisdiction properly obtained against the nonresident defendant. (2) He held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover upon their alleged certified judgment without any proof of the law of Georgia authorizing a recovery in a like case, and it is respectfully submitted (and excepted to) that the proofs submitted on the trial do not warrant a recovery against the defendant, in that they do not...