Gilchrist v. W. Va. O.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1882
• Citation: 21 W.Va. 115
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Gilchrist v. W. Va. O. & O. L. Co.

21 W.Va. 115

Gilchrist

v.W. Va. O. & O. L. Co.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted June IS, 1878

Decided December 2, 1882

(*SNYDER, Judge, Absent.)

1. In deciding what effect a judgment rendered in another State is to have in this, it must be regarded as well settled, that it must have the same faith and credit here, as it had in the State where it was rendered, (p. 118.)

2. When a judgment rendered in another State is sought to be enforced in a court in our State, our courts may enquire into the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it, and if it appear that the court which rendered the judgment had not jurisdiction, the judgment is void; but if otherwise, it is valid and binding in our State, (p. 118.)

3. If the court, which rendered the judgment, was a court of general jurisdiction, the presumption is it had jurisdiction of the particular case, and to render the judgment void, this presumption must be overcome by proof, (p. 118.)

4. When the validity of the judgment depends upon a construction of the statutes of the State, in which the foreign court rendered the judgment, our courts will adopt the construction put upon the said statutes by the courts of the State which enacted them. (p. 119.)

5. By the construction, which the New York courts put upon the New York statutes authorizing proceedings against foreign corporations, no judgment inperBOncm can be rendered in that State against a foreign corporation, unless it has appeared to the action, (p. 128.)

Appeal from and supersedeas to a decree of the circuit court of the county of Wood, rendered on the 9th day of October, 1877, in a cause in said court then pending, wherein K. W. Gilchrist was plaintiff, and the West Virginia Oil and Oil Land Company was defendant, allowed upon the petition of said defendant.

Hon. James M. Jackson, judge of the fifth judicial circuit, rendered the decree appealed from.

Cause siilm Ltted before Judge B. took his seat on the bench.

The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.

Arthur I. Boreman for appellant cited the following authorities: Code pp. 90-91, § 4; Voorhies N Y. Code (ed. 1870) § 134; 5 How. (N Y.) 183; 9 How. (N. Y.) 448; Voorhies Code § 427; 8 Abb. 284; 2 Hilt, 262; 30 Barb. 159; 20 How. (N. Y.) 62; 18 How. (N. Y.) 412; Sto. Prom. Notes, § 339; Dan. Neg. Inst. p. 680, § 898; 4 Abb. 77; 13 How. (N Y.) 516; 16 Abb. 249; 18 How. (U. S.) 404; 10 Pet 449; 9 Leigh 119; 9 Gratt. 323; 27 Gratt. 624; 18 Wall. 457; 19 Wall. 59.

Cole $ Cole for appellee cited the following authorities: Mills v. Durjjee, Cranch 481; 5 Wall. 291; 22Wail. 77; 18 Wall. 457; 1 Smith L. Cas. (pt. 2) 1124; Big. on Estop. 234; 17 Wend. 473; 9 Leigh 119; 9 Gratt. 328; Hatty. Hall, 11 W. Va.; 2 How. (IT. 8.) 319; 19 Wall. 58; Code ch. 13 1.4; 2 Wise. 523; Voorhies (N. Y.) Code, (ed. 1870) §§ 134, 138; Am. L. Reg. Aug., 1877, p. 504; 1 Neb. 14; 9 How. Pr. 448; 41 Barb. 10;"26 How. 225; 18 How. 404; 2 Wood C. C. 479.

Johnson, President, announced the opinion of the Court:

In April, 1876, the plaintiff filed his bill in the circuit court of Wood county, in which he alleged the recovery of a judgment on the 7th day of June, 1875, in the supreme court of New York against the defendants, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Michigan; and also against James H. Carrington and Henry Carrington, partners under the firm name of J. II. Carrington & Co., for the sum of one thousand five hundred and forty-nine dollars and seventy cents. The bill exhibits the said judgment and alleges, that it has not been satisfied in whole or in part; that the defendant company lias property in said county of Wood, also in Ritchie county; that several parties named in the bill have property in their possession belonging to said company; that the West Virginia Transportation Company is indebted to said company, and said parties had been summoned as garnishees; that plaintiff is a lessee of said company, and has caused himself to be summoned as garnishee, and had caused an attachment to be levied on the oil in his possession; that an order of attachment had issued in the case, and a considerable amount of property in the hands of different parties, had been levied on thereunder.

The bill charges, that the defendant company is insolvent, and has no property to pay said judgment other than that levied on under the attachment in the cause. It makes all the parties having property in these processes, which was attached in the cause and those summoned as garnishees defendants, and prays a decree against the defendant company and Jas. H. Carrington & Co., for the amount of the judgment and costs, and that the attached property be sold to pay the same, &c.

The defendant company demurred to the bill and also answered, in which answer it-denied the validity of such record and judgment exhibited with the bill, because as it claims, under the laws of New York the said New York court had not jurisdiction to render such personal judgment as was rendered. First, because the said defendant companywas a corporation foreign to New York and to the jurisdiction of said court, and the service of the summons and complaint in said cause, purports to have been on said company, on the 2d day of April, 1874, by delivering a copy thereof to Jas. II. Carrington as the managing agent of said company; but it is not stated at what place the service took place, or whether or not it was within the said city, county or State of New York. It denies, that according to the laws of New York it was served with process in the said cause in New York in which said judgment was rendered; and that James H. Carrington, to whom it appears by said pretended record, and affidavit of Wilson Hogg, that copies of the summons and complaint in said suit were delivered on the 2d day of April, 1874, was not at that time an officer of defendant, or its managing agent, nor was he at that time the agent at all of defendant, nor did he at that time sustain any relation to defendant, which authorized, service on defendant by delivering copies of summons and copies of petition to said Carrington, &c.

To the answer the plaintiff replied generally: Proof was taken as to the agency of Carrington, the service of process on the agent, &c. and on the 13th day of April, 1877, the court rendered a decree, holding said personal judgment rendered in New York valid, and decreed the payment thereof, &c. From this decree an appeal with supersedeas was granted.

The question here to be decided is, was the New York court authorized to render a personal judgment against the West Virginia Oil and Oil Land Company. It must be remembered, that the said company is a foreign corporation, confessedly so in the record, and there is-no pretense, thafby the laws of New York, it was quo ad any business it did in that State, regarded and held to he a domestic corporation.

In deciding what effect the judgment rendered in New York is to have in our State, it must be regarded as well settled, that the judgment of a State court is to have the same faith and credit in each and every State in the Union, as it had in the State where it was rendered. Mills v. Durgee, 7 Cranch 481; Christmas v. Jiusselt, 5 Wall. 291: Maxwell v. Stewart, 22 Wall. 77.

When a judgment rendered in another State, is sought to be enforced in our State, our courts may enquire into the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it, and if it appear that the court which rendered the judgment had not jurisdiction, it is void; but if it had jurisdiction then it is valid and binding in our State. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, and cases cited.

If the court be one of general jurisdiction the presumption is, that it had jurisdiction of the particular case, and to render the judgment void, this presumption must be overcome by proof. Grignon's Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. IT. S. 319; Knoicles v. Gas Light Co., 19 Wall. 58.

If we concede, that the cause of action upon which the judgment was rendered arose in the State of New York, and the defendant had property there, and under the forms of the laws of New York process was served upon a properly constituted agent of the foreign corporation, still the question recurs, could the court legally render a personal judgment against the foreign corporation, when it had not ap- peared generally to the action. We may concede, that the court did have jurisdiction to subject the defendants' property by attachment, to the payment of its debt in New York, but could it go further and without the appearance of the corporation to the action, render & personal judgment against it?

After the judgment had been recovered in the action mentioned in the record of the New York court, the defendant by counsel, did appear, and moved to vacate the judgment on the ground, that the court had not jurisdiction to render it. And by the decision of Judge Lawrence, fil'ed here it appears, that he refused to vacate the judgment, because as he held, the cause ol action arose in New York, and therefore the court had jurisdiction.

The statutes under which the proceedings were had, are sections 427, and 134, of Voorhees' New York Code. Section 427 provides,."An action against a corporation created by or under the laws of any other State, government or country, may be brought in the supreme court, the supreme court of the city of New York, or the court of common pleas for the city and county of New York, in the following cases, viz: First, By a resident of the State for any cause of action. Second, By a plaintiff not a resident of this State, when the cause ot action shall have arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated, within this State." And section 134 provides, that the summons shall be served by delivering a copy thereof as follows: "If the suit be against a corporation, to the president, or other head of the corporation, secretary, cashier, treasurer, a director, or managing agent thereof; but such...