International Harvester Co. of America v. Solazo

• Citation: 178 S.E. 429,116 W.Va. 34
• Decision Date: 05 February 1935
• Docket Number: C. C. 506.
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA v. SOLAZO.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

178 S.E. 429

116 W.Va. 34

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA v. SOLAZO.

C. C. No. 506.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

February 5, 1935

Submitted January 29, 1935.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The plea of nul tiel record is the proper general issue plea in an action of debt based on a judgment of another state.

2. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution, the courts of this state may not refuse to enforce a judgment of another state because it involves some contravention of the public policy of this state.

3. In an action on a judgment of another state the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment may be challenged by special plea.

4. In an action on a judgment of another state the defendant may not plead that the basis of the action was tainted with fraud. That matter is foreclosed by the judgment.

5. Fraud in the procurement of a judgment in another state may be pleaded as a defense to an action in this state based on such judgment, but such plea will be deemed insufficient if its allegations are not distinct and particular.

Certified from Circuit Court, Mineral County.

Action of debt by the International Harvester Company of America against John D. Solazo. Order overruling demurrers to four pleas and cause certified to Supreme Court.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Wm MacDonald, of Keyser, for plaintiff.

R. A Welch, of Keyser, for defendant.

MAXWELL, JUDGE.

The purpose of this inquiry is to determine the correctness of the trial court's action overruling demurrers to four pleas which were interposed to a declaration in debt based on a Pennsylvania judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $21,186.64.

The sufficiency of the declaration is not challenged.

The first plea is nul tiel record. This is the proper general issue plea in an action of this character. 34 Corpus Juris p. 1098; 15 Ruling Case Law, p. 948; Hogg's Pl. & Forms (4th Ed.) pp. 264, 459; Burks Pl. & Pr. (3d Ed.) p. 160; 5 Ency. Pl. & Pr., p. 925; Jackson v. Conrad, 14 W.Va 526. The plea filed being sufficient in both form and substance, the demurrer thereto was rightly overruled.

The first special plea avers that the judgment impleaded was based on so-called judgment notes and that the judgment includes $2,448.40 attorney's fee or commission of ten per centum of the face of the notes, and "that the collection of an attorney's commission as part of the face value of the note, is contrary to the law of the State of West Virginia, and can not be collected in this State." True, a provision of that kind in a note will not be enforced in this jurisdiction. Campen Bros. v Stewart, 106 W.Va. 247, 145 S.E. 381. On the authority of that case, such inhibition or ban applies "not only to promissory notes payable in this state, but to all notes for which this state affords the forum for collection." However, at bar we are not dealing with a mere contract but with a judgment of another state. The situation is different. "The public acts or laws, records, and judicial proceedings of a state are not susceptible of control or limitation by other states to the extent to which contracts are. A contract made in one state, to be performed in another, whose public policy it contravenes, need not be enforced by its courts; but the law of another state or judgment of its courts stands upon a higher footing." Roller v. Murray, 71 W.Va. 161, 167, 76 S.E. 172, 175, L. R. A. 1915F, 984, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1139. Full faith and credit must be given to such judgment. U.S. Constitution, art. 4, § 1; 2 Black on Judgments (2d Ed.) § 859; 3 Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) § 1357; 15 Ruling Case Law, pp. 924, 927. The courts of this state cannot refuse full import to a judgment of a sister state on the ground that it involves an element not approved in this state, but sanctioned where the judgment was rendered. The plea does not present a defense to the action and should have been held insufficient on demurrer.

The second special plea presents a challenge to the Pennsylvania court's jurisdiction of the defendant when the judgment was rendered. Such defense to an action on a judgment of a sister state is proper. Caswell v. Caswell, 84 W.Va 575, 100 S.E. 482; Crumlish's Adm'r v. Improvement Co., 38 W.Va. 390, 18 S.E. 456, 23 L. R. A. 120, 45 Am. St. Rep. 872. This...