Kingman v. Paulsen

• Decision Date: 15 January 1891
• Citation: 26 N.E. 393,126 Ind. 507
• Parties: Kingman et ux. v. Paulsen.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

126 Ind. 507

26 N.E. 393

Kingman et ux.

v.Paulsen.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 15, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; Dan Waugh, Judge.

Blacklidge, Blacklidge & Moore, for appellants. Elliott & Kirkpatrick, for appellee.

OLDS, C. J.

This action was brought by the appellee, William A. Paulsen, against the appellants, Martha A. Kingman and Arthur L. Kingman, in the Howard circuit court, upon a judgment rendered in the superior court of Cook county, Ill., in favor of said appellee against said appellants. Attachment proceedings were also instituted in this case, and the property of the appellant Martha A. Kingman was attached.

Two questions are presented by the record and discussed by counsel. It is first contended by counsel for appellants that the judgment of the superior court of Cook county is not conclusive, and that it may be attacked collaterally in this case. The record of the judgment in the superior court shows it to be a judgment by confession upon a promissory note; the note executed by the appellants being payable to J. Robson Weddell, and afterwards indorsed by him to the appellee. The appellants executed a power of attorney, appointing and authorizing the appellee, William A. Paulsen, or any attorney of any court of record, to be their true and lawful attorney, irrevocable, for them, and in their names, place, and stead, to appear before any court of record, either in termtime or in vacation, in any of the states or territories of the United States, at any time after the expiration of said note, to waive the issuing and service of process and confess judgment, etc. The note is payable at the office of Weddell, in Chicago. The record shows an appearance by Clifford, Anthony, and Paulsen on behalf of the appellee herein, the plaintiff in said cause, and the filing of the complaint, and by William P. Winners, the attorney for the defendants in said cause, the appellants herein, the filing of the warrant of attorney as his authority to appear, and that proof of its execution was duly made, and the judgment is regular in form. The question presented is as to whether or not a judgment of a court of a sister state having general jurisdiction, the record being regular, and showing an appearance on behalf of the defendant or defendants, and a confession of judgment against them, and that such appearance was authorized by a power of attorney duly executed by such defendants, authorizing such appearance and confession of judgment, can be attacked collaterally. That it cannot be so attacked is too well settled to be open to discussion. Section 1, art. 4, of the constitution of the United States provides that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Freeman in his work on Judgments, (3d Ed.) § 560 says: “The language of the supreme court in Mills v. Duryee, which substantially was but a quotation from the act of 1790, that a judgment must in every state be given the same faith and credit to which it is entitled where it was rendered, was so comprehensive and distinct as to seem to negative the existence of any exception to the broad rule here laid down, and to impart to such judgment in all cases and in...