Hutchison v. Patrick

• Decision Date: 31 December 1831
• Citation: 3 Mo. 65
• Parties: HUTCHISON v. PATRICK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 65

HUTCHISON

v.PATRICK.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December Term, 1831.

ERROR FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT.

TOMPKINS, J.

Hutchison sued Patrick on a judgment obtained in Kentucky. By leave of the court the plaintiff amended his declaration by inserting the word “said” before the words “Garrison Patrick.” The defendant then filed the pleas of nul tiel record and of payment to the declaration. The plea of payment contained an averment that in the State of Kentucky the plea of payment was good to a declaration in an action of debt, founded on a judgment. Issue was joined on the first plea, and the plaintiff moved the court to strike out the second, which was accordingly done. The defendant claimed a continuance on account of the plaintiff's amending his declaration, and the court not allowing it, judgment was had at the same term on the first plea, viz: nul tiel record. It is assigned for error: First. That the plea of payment was stricken out. Second. That the cause was not continued. Third. That the judgment offered in evidence varied from that declaration. Fourth. That the record was not duly certified. Fifth. That it does not appear by the record produced in evidence, that the defendant had notice of the action in Kentucky.

First. It was contended by the defendant in error that the plea was bad, first, because it was no bar to an action on a judgment, that matter not being regulated by the law of Kentucky; and, second, because the plea presented two facts to be found by the jury. It is our opinion that the two facts constitute only one defense. It becomes then necessary to inquire whether the plea of payment can, under any circumstances be a good bar to an action of debt on a judgment. The case of Hampton and McConnel, decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the district of South Carolina, in our opinion is in point. In that case McConnel, the defendant in error, declared against the plaintiff in error in debt on a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; to which the defendant below pleaded nil debet, and the plaintiff below demurred. The Circuit Court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below, and thereupon the cause was taken up by writ of error to that court. The chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court, said this is precisely the case of Mills v. Durgee. The doctrine there held was, that the judgment of a State Court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court in the United States, which it had in the State where it was pronounced, and that whatever pleas would be good to a suit thereon in such State, and none others, could be pleaded in any other court of the United States. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed, the plea of nil debet in such case not good in the State of New York. This decision we regard as a true exposition of the 1st section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the United States, and of the acts of Congress on that subject, and so far obligatory on us. The law of Kentucky not being judicially known to us, was properly put in issue by the plea, and the Circuit Court of Howard county should have required the plaintiff to reply to the plea of payment, such as it was

Second. In the second assignment of error, we cannot see that the court has abused the...