Kingman v. Paulson
| Citation | 26 N.E. 393,126 Ind. 507 |
| Decision Date | 15 January 1891 |
| Docket Number | 14,425 |
| Parties | Kingman et al. v. Paulson |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From the Howard Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. C Blacklidge, W. E. Blacklidge and B. C. Moon, for appellants.
J. F Elliott and L. J. Kirkpatrick, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellee, William A. Paulson 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, Illinois, 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 endorsed by him to the appellee. The appellants executed a power of attorney appointing and authorizing the appellee, William A. Paulson, 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 term time 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 Paulson 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 can not be attacked is too well settled to be open to discussion. Section 1, article 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., section 560, says: "The language of the Supreme Court, 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 a judgment in all cases, and in all localities, the full effect of a domestic judgment." Giving to the judgment the same faith and credit as given to a judgment rendered by a court of general jurisdiction within this State, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial