Miller v. Leach
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 95 N.C. 229 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOHN S. MILLER v. JANE LEACH, Executrix of ANGUS LEACH. |
CIVIL ACTION tried, before Boykin, Judge, at February Term, 1886, of RICHMOND Superior Court.
A jury trial was waived, and by consent the Court found the the facts as follows:
The summons in this case issued on the 3d of December, 1881. Jane Leach qualified as Executrix of Angus Leach, who was a resident of and died in Richmond county. Jane Leach is a resident of Richmond county.
On the 8th of January, 1872, the plaintiff recovered judgment for $60, the amount of the debt, and for one hundred and thirty dollars costs, with interest on both sums from the 8th of January, 1872, against Angus Leach, in the Court of Common Pleas of Chesterfield county, in South Carolina; that this judgment has been duly certified by the proper authorities of South Carolina in the manner prescribed by law, and that such judgment was rendered according to law in the said State; that this action is instituted to enforce the collection of said judgment under the laws of North Carolina; that the plaintiff did not exhibit or produce in evidence any statute or other law of the State of South Carolina, nor offer other evidence under which said judgment was rendered at the trial of this cause; that this action was commenced in the court of a Justice of the Peace of Richmond county, and the pleadings therein were oral; that the plaintiff complained that the testator of the defendant was indebted to him upon the said judgment in the sum of $60, the amount of the debt, and $130 costs, with interest on both sums from the 8th of January, 1872, and that the defendant denied the judgment, and pleaded the statute of limitations in bar thereof.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Court found the following conclusions of law, to-wit: That the said judgment does not survive the defendant Angus Leach; that after his death its character as a judgment is functus officio, and that it cannot be enforced against his executor. And it was adjudged that the defendant go without day and recover his costs. The plaintiff excepted to the above ruling and appealed.
Mr. James A. Lockhart, for the plaintiff .
Messrs. Platt D. Walker and Frank McNeill, for the defendant .
ASHE, J. (after stating the facts).
The only question presented by this appeal, is whether there was error in the judgment of the Superior Court, in holding that the judgment rendered in South Carolina does not survive the defendant therein, Angus Leach, and cannot be enforced against his executrix in this State.
The action is upon a judgment rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction in South Carolina. It is regularly authenticated under the Act of Congress; and by Article IV, §1, of the Constitution of the United States, it is declared that “full faith and credit shall be given in each State, to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.” By virtue of this provision of the Constitution, and the Act of 1790,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mottu v. Davis
...55 S.E. 371, 115 Am. St. Rep. 747, and the decision in that case is well sustained by authority in this and other jurisdictions. Miller v. Leach, 95 N.C. 229; Gray v. Richmond Bic. Co., 167 N.Y. 348, 60 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 720; Davis v. Headley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115; Payne v. Oshea, 84 Mo. 129......
-
Mottu v. Davis
...371, 115 Am. St. Rep. 747, and the decision in that case is well sustained by authority in this and other jurisdictions. Miller v. Leach, 95 N. C. 229; Gray v. Richmond Bic. Co., 167 N. Y. 348, 60 N. E. 663, 82 Am. St. Rep. 720; Davis v. Headley, 22 N. J. Eq. 115; Payne v. Oshea, 84 Mo. 129......
-
American Nat. Bank v. Dew
...254, 43 S.E. 636; Alley v. Nott, 111 U.S. 472, 4 S.Ct. 495, 28 L.Ed. 491; Gould v. Railroad Co., 91 U.S. 526, 23 L.Ed. 416; and Miller v. Leach, 95 N.C. 229, the last holding that the doctrine applies to a judgment recovered in the court of another state having jurisdiction of the subject-m......
-
State v. Herren
...served with legal notice, and not present in person or by attorney, the original judgment in another state is a nullity." And in Miller v. Leach, 95 N.C. 229: virtue of the Constitution of the United States, and acts of Congress in pursuance thereof, the judgments of other states are put up......