Holdridge v. Marsh

• Decision Date: 10 April 1888
• Parties: E. P. HOLDRIDGE, Respondent, v. J. W. MARSH, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

30 Mo.App. 352

E. P. HOLDRIDGE, Respondent, v. J. W. MARSH, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

April 10, 1888

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HON. GEORGE W. LUBKE Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

J. W COLLINS, for the appellant: The alleged judgment upon which this suit is brought is not a legal or valid judgment. It is only a skeleton memorandum, and not such a record of a judgment as the law will recognize, or upon which a suit can be based. Wheeler v. Scott, 3 Wis. 262; Martin v. Barnhardt, 39 Ill. 12; Falk v. Kellmus, 54 Ill. 189; Wright v. Fletcher, 12 Vt. 431; McNamara v. Caban, 33 N.W. 259; Reeside v Walker, 11 How. 287; Lewis v. Watrus, 7 Neb. 479; Taylor v. Runyan, 3 Clarke (Ia.) 475; Freeman on Judgments, sec. 2. The court erred in permitting respondent to introduce incompetent and illegal evidence; by allowing the deposition of justice Norton and exhibit A, attached thereto, to be read; by permitting the alleged judgment to be read; by permitting respondent to introduce evidence as to issues not presented in the case, and to go back of the judgment sued on, and introduce evidence pertaining to the merits of the original case on which the judgment in suit was based. Story's Conflict of Laws, 828; Wright v. Fletcher, 12 Vt. 431; Taylor v. Bryden, 8 Johns. 173; Glass v. Blackwell, 2 S.W. 257.

FRANK M. ESTES, for the respondent: The district court in New York had jurisdiction in the case of Holdridge v. Marsh. The judgment is regular in form and according to the laws of New York governing district courts. A foreign judgment is prima-facie evidence of a debt, and that everything was done in the court in which it was obtained that was necessary to support it, and it is conclusive inter partes when there is nothing on the face of the judgment which a court can inquire into.

OPINION

ROMBAUER P. J.

This is a suit for a balance upon a judgment recovered by plaintiff against the defendant before the district court of the City of New York for the first judicial district. The action was instituted before a justice of the peace, where plaintiff had judgment. Upon trial anew in the circuit court, the plaintiff recovered judgment again. The defendant appealing assigns for errors the admission of incompetent testimony and the giving of erroneous instructions.

The defendant by a written plea made a number of special defences, but no evidence was offered in their support upon the trial, with the exception of the defence that the district court of New York had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, either by service of process or by appearance.

There is nothing in the record to show that the court rendering the judgment was a court of limited jurisdiction. The deposition of the justice who rendered the judgment was given in evidence by plaintiff, who stated that the case was tried upon the merits before him, both parties appearing by counsel, and that the judgment rendered by him was regular in form according to the law of the state of New York; that no appeal had been taken therefrom, and that the time for taking the appeal had expired.

The justice annexed to his deposition as part thereof the following exhibit purporting to be a memorandum of the judgment rendered by him:

" 55,285, District Court in the City of New York for the First Judicial District.

Holdridge )

vs. )

Marsh. )

Claim $250. Ret. the 28th day of April, 1885, at 9:30 a. m. Plaintiff appeared by L. L. Settle; complaint, salary, $150, commissions, $100. Defendant appeared; makes objections; overruled. Answer G. D. B. of P. Adjourned to May 1. Judgment for plaintiff for damages, $200; costs, $6; extra costs, $12. Dated this first day of May, 1885.

[Signed] MICHAEL NORTON, Justice."

An exemplified copy of the judgment roll was then offered in evidence, containing a copy of all the original papers in the suit of Holdridge vs. Marsh, in said district court, containing the following transcript of the judgment entry: " Edgar P. Holdridge, Plaintiff, vs. John W. Marsh, Defendant. Judgment rendered for plaintiff on the first day of May, 1885, against defendant, costs and extra costs $200 & 18. $218.00."

" City and County of New York. I certify the preceding to be a correct transcript of the judgment rendered in the above entitled cause.

LUCIUS C. BRUNS, Clerk.

New York, February 3, 1886."

The exemplification thus offered was duly certified to according to the laws of the United States in relation to the authentication of records and judicial proceedings, under the signature of the judge and the hand and seal of the clerk.

Objections were interposed by the defendant, both to the testimony of the justice and the exemplified copy of the record, and were overruled. There was no error in this. The justice was a competent witness to prove the laws of his own state, and there is nothing in the record to disprove his statement that a judgment in the...