Hill v. Mendenhall
| Citation | 88 U.S. 453,21 Wall. 453,22 L.Ed. 616 |
| Parties | HILL v. MENDENHALL |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Hill sued Mendenhall in the court below upon a judgment in one of the courts of record in the State of Minnesota. The plea was nul tiel record alone. Upon the trial of the issue made by this plea, the plaintiff introduced in evidence an exemplification of the record sued upon. This record showed upon its face that the defendant was, at the time that action was commenced, a resident of the State of North Carolina; that the summons issued had been returned not served; that thereupon, by order of the court, service was made by publication, and that after such publication the defendant appeared by attorney, filed an answer verified by an agent, and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
The bill of exceptions showed that, after introducing the record, the plaintiff called a witness who gave evidence tending to prove that the party who verified the answer was at the time an agent of the defendant for the transaction of his business in Minnesota. The defendant then testified in his own behalf and in substance denied the agency.
The Circuit Court found that there was such a record as was sued upon, but because it did not appear in the exemplification or from the evidence that the summons had been served upon the defendant, gave judgment in this action in his favor. This ruling of the Circuit Court was now assigned for error.
Messrs. P. Phillips and W. A. Graham, for the plaintiff in error. No opposing counsel.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
It is true the record sued upon in this case does show that defendant was not served with process, but it also shows his voluntary appearance by an attorney. If this appearance was authorized, it is as effective for the purposes of jurisdiction as an actual service of summons. When an attorney of a court of record appears in an action for one of the parties, his authority, in the absence of any proof to the contrary, will be presumed. A record which shows such an appearance will bind the party until it is proven that the attorney acted without authority.
Since the cases of Thompson v. Whitman,1 and Knowles v. Gaslight and Coke Company,2 it may be considered as settled in this court, that when a judgment rendered in one State is sued upon in another, the defendant may contradict the record to the extent of showing that in point of fact the court rendering the judgment did not have jurisdiction of his person. If such showing is made the action must fail, because a judgment obtained under such circumstances has no effect outside of the State in which it was rendered.
But if it appears on the face of the record that the court did have jurisdiction, extrinsic evidence to contradict it is not admissible under a plea of nul tiel record. The office of pleading is to inform the court and the parties of the facts in issue; the court, that it may declare the law, and the parties, that they may know what to meet by their proof. Nul tiel record puts in issue only the fact of the existence of the record, and is met by the production of the record itself valid upon its face, or an exemplification duly authenticated under the act of Congress. A defence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Booth v. Fletcher
...D.C.Mass., 37 F.2d 730, 731; Feldman Investment Co. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 78 F.2d 838. 24 Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. 453, 454, 22 L.Ed. 616; Bonnifield v. Thorp, supra note 23. See also, Department of Water and Power v. Anderson, 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 577, 25 Huntington......
-
In re Hanrahan's Will
...by the Federal Supreme Court, and have never been departed from. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, 571; Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. (U.S.) 453, 22 L.Ed. 616; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U.S. 160, 23 L.Ed. 271, 274; Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287, 11 S.Ct. 9......
-
In re Thomas Hanrahan's Will
... ... Supreme Court, and have never been departed from ... Pennoyer v. Neff , 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed ... 565, 571; Hill v. Mendenhall , 21 Wall ... (U.S.) 453, 22 L.Ed. 616; Hall v. Lanning , ... 91 U.S. 160, 23 L.Ed. 271, 274; Grover & Baker Sewing ... ...
-
Department of Water and Power v. Anderson
...of the bar formally appearing for litigants before us and in other federal courts are authorized to so appear (Hill v. Mendenhall, 88 U.S. 453, 21 Wall. 453, 454, 22 L.Ed. 616), and will continue to indulge in that assumption until the litigants or such attorneys formally and under oath cha......