Earl v. Earl

• Citation: 149 P. 1179,48 Okla. 442,1915 OK 443
• Decision Date: 08 June 1915
• Docket Number: 7082.
• Parties: EARL v. EARL ET AL.
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

149 P. 1179

48 Okla. 442, 1915 OK 443

EARL v. EARL ET AL.

No. 7082.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 8, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

The courts of any state in the Union have jurisdiction to declare the judgments of a sister state void for want of jurisdiction, and neither the constitutional provision that full faith and credit be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state or the act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof prevents an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court by which a judgment is rendered, by the courts of another state.

A regular judgment, while it remains in force, is conclusive as to every matter that might have been given in evidence on the issues raised by the pleadings.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Judge.

Action by Lura Earl against Beatrice Earl and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

F. A Rittenhouse, of Chandler, for plaintiff in error.

John J Davis, of Chandler, and J. L. McKamy, of Sparks, for defendants in error.

DEVEREUX C. (after stating the facts as above).

For the purpose of this opinion it will be assumed that the affidavit for service by publication in the divorce action of 1895 was insufficient, and that service by publication in that action was void. This presents the question whether or not the judgment of the circuit court of Davies county, Mo was res judicata, and therefore an estoppel upon the present plaintiff in this action. The preliminary question arises whether the courts of one state have jurisdiction to declare the judgment of another state void. While there is some conflict of authority on this question, the great weight of authority is that they do possess such power. In Litowich v. Litowich, 19 Kan. 451, 27 Am. Rep. 145, a decree of divorce had been obtained in Utah, and the validity of this judgment came to the Kansas courts on the question of alimony in that court. It was contended that the Utah divorce was void, and the court say:

"Where the judgment granting the divorce does not appear to be void upon its face, it may be shown to be void by evidence aliunde. And, indeed, any judgment from a sister state, void for want of jurisdiction, may be shown to be void in any proceeding, direct or collateral, and by evidence dehors the record, provided that the record itself does not show the invalidity of the judgment upon its face. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 ; Knowles v. Gaslight Co., 19 Wall. 59 ."

This is followed in the case of Mastin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 458, 27 Am. Rep. 149, wherein the court say:

"A great majority of the courts hold that a judgment from another state may be impeached for want of jurisdiction collaterally as well as directly, and by extrinsic evidence as well as by the record."

In Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897, it is decided that neither the constitutional provision that full faith and credit be given in each state to the judicial proceedings of another state or the act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof prevents an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment by the courts of another state. In our opinion, these cases are supported by reason and the great weight of authority, and the Missouri court therefore had jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the Oklahoma judgment.

The question is, therefore, whether the judgment of the Missouri court was res judicata in the case at bar. In that case two issues were distinctly raised by the answer: First, the general denial of the allegations of the petition by the wife; and, second, the validity of the Oklahoma judgment. It will be noted that in her reply the present plaintiff directly impeached the judgment on the ground that there was no jurisdiction over her person. The court in that case made a general finding on the issues in favor of the defendant. The question therefore is presented whether this was an adjudication of the Oklahoma judgment.

In Pratt v. Ratliff, 10 Okl. 168, 61 P. 523, it is held:

"A judgment is a bar if the cause of action be the same, though the form be different. The cause is the same when the same evidence will support both actions; or, rather, the judgment in the former action will be a bar provided the evidence necessary to sustain the judgment for the plaintiff in the present action would have authorized

...