Dickson v. Lindsay, No. 40912

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtARRINGTON; McGEHEE
Citation107 So.2d 732,234 Miss. 684
PartiesRobert L. DICKSON v. William L. LINDSAY.
Docket NumberNo. 40912
Decision Date15 December 1958

Page 732

107 So.2d 732
234 Miss. 684
William L. LINDSAY.
No. 40912.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Dec. 15, 1958.

[234 Miss. 685] Roberson, Luckett & Roberson, Clarksdale, for appellant.

[234 Miss. 687] Talbot, Sullivan & Dunbar, Clarksdale, for appellee.

Page 733

[234 Miss. 689] ARRINGTON, Justice.

The appellee, William L. Lindsay, filed suit in the County Court of Coahoma County against Robert L. Dickson, the appellant, to recover on a judgment obtained by him in the State of Illinois, and prayed for a writ of attachment against the estate of the appellant in order to satisfy said judgment. The County Court rendered judgment for the appellee and held that the attachment was rightfully sued out. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Coahoma County the judgment was affirmed, hence this appeal.

The appellee charged in his declaration that no part of the judgment sued on had been paid. The appellant answered and admitted that no part of the judgment had been paid, but contended that at the time the judgment was obtained on August 30, 1950, he was not a citizen of Illinois nor within the State; that he was not served with process and had no notice of the suit, and that the Court of Illinois did not have jurisdiction, therefore, the judgment was void and not entitled to full faith and credit. He further contended that the attachment was wrongfully sued out and asked for damages and attorneys' fees.

The Illinois judgment was made an exhibit to the declaration, which is as follows:

'No. 931

'William L. Lindsay, Plaintiff


Robert L. Dickson and Dorothy Mae Dickson, Defendants

'Now, On this 30th day of August, A.D. 1950, it being one of the Regular Judicial days of this Court, comes [234 Miss. 690] the Plaintiff, William L. Lindsay by Mitchell and Calvin, his Attorneys, and file his Complaint and file also the instrument in writing on which this suit is brought, to-wit: One (1) promissory note, the execution of which is duly proven in open Court.

'And Now Come also the said defendants, by John L. Knuppel, Attorney, and file herein their warrany of Attorney, duly executed by the said Defendants, authorizing him to appear in any Court of Record in behalf of said Defendants, and waive service of process and confess judgment in favor of said plaintiff, and against said Defendants, for the amount found to be due upon one (1) certain promissory note annexed to said warrant of attorney, and also for the sum of One Hundred Thirty Dollars ($130.00), Attorney's fees, besides the costs of suit, the execution of said warrant of Attorney being duly proven in open Court. And the said Defendants' Attorney also files his Cognovit, by which he waives service of process upon the said Defendants, and confess the said action of the Plaintiff, and that said Plaintiff, by reason of the non-performance of the promises in the Plaintiff's Complaint mentioned, has sustained damages in the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-eight (1,498) dollars and Fifty-six (56) cents, it being the amount due on said Note, including Attorney's fees, over and above all costs by him in this behalf expended; and the said Defendants, by their said Attorney, consent and agree that judgment may be entered in this behalf in favor of the said Plaintiff, and against said Defendants, for the amount of damages and Attorney's fees aforesaid, to-wit: For the sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-eight (1,498) dollars and Fifty-six (56) cents, and for costs of suit; and release all errors in entering up this judgment, or in issuing execution thereon, and consent to the issuing of immediate execution on the same.

[234 Miss. 691] 'It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court, that said Plaintiff have and recover of and from the said defendants the said sum of One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-eight (1,498) dollars and Fifty-six (56) Cents, being the amount of damages, including Attorney's fees, as confessed as aforesaid, together with all costs and charges by him about this suit in this behalf expended, and that he have execution therefor.

Page 734

'Attest: Marjorie B. Blessman, Clerk.


Confession Record '1', Page 387.'

The appellant contends, first, that the Court of Illinois did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment sued on, and, second, that the judgment was not properly authenticated in that it did not contain the note and alleged warrant of attorney upon which the judgment was based, and, therefore, was not entitled to full faith and credit.

The judgment is duly authenticated under Title 28, U.S.C.A. Sec. 1738. Article IV, U. S. Constitution, provides: 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may be general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'

In Jones v. McCormick, 145 Miss. 566, 110 So. 591, 592, this Court held: 'The objection to the certification of this decree is that the copy thereof is not accompanied by a copy of the record on which it was rendered. It is not necessary, in suing on a judgment or decree, to exhibit a copy of the record on which it was rendered. All that is necessary is to allege the required jurisdiction facts and to exhibit a copy of the judgment or decree (34 Cyc. 109).'

[234 Miss. 692] The note upon which this judgment was based was duly authenticated and introduced in evidence over the objection of the appellant and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT