Poorman v. Mitchell

• Citation: 48 Mo. 45
• Parties: DANIEL POORMAN, Respondent, v. SOLOMON C. MITCHELL, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1871
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

48 Mo. 45

DANIEL POORMAN, Respondent,

v.SOLOMON C. MITCHELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1871.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

T. Z. Blakeman, for appellant.

I. The courts of this State, where a foreign judgment is sought to be enforced by suit before them, will inquire into the jurisdiction of the court rendering the same, and if they find that the said court had not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and the subject-matter of the suit, they will treat such judgment as null and void. (Latimer v. Union Pacific R.R., 43 Mo. 105.) Whether or not the court of Ohio had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, must appear from the record of the judgment. (Lapham v. Briggs, 27 Verm. 24, 26; Evans v. Instine, 6 Ohio, 117; 1 Greenl. Ev. 546, 548.)

II. Plaintiff cannot avail himself of the finding of facts by the court of Ohio under the petition of the defendant to vacate said judgment. Plaintiff must rely on his cause of action at the time he declares. A court cannot render a judgment, and afterward, in another proceeding, find the facts to support the judgment. The finding of the court on defendant's petition to vacate, is not a declaration of a court of Ohio as to the force and effect of said judgment in Ohio. It is nothing more than a recital of what it concludes to be facts. The finding of matters of fact, as aforesaid, could not be used as evidence on the trial of the cause below, because it is no more than hearsay.S. Reber, for respondent.

I. The matters of defense set up in defendant's amended answer are adjudicated and decided against him in the proceedings which he instituted in the Ohio court. He chose his own court, which had jurisdiction of the matter.

II. The judgment of the Ohio court, if erroneous--of which there is no pretense--could not be attacked collaterally, but only reversed on error.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was founded upon an Ohio judgment. The defendant avers that the judgment is not binding on him because of the existence of certain facts which are set out in the answer. The plaintiff replied, first traversing the allegations of the answer, and then averring specially that, in conformity with the practice and laws of Ohio, the defendant, on the 26th of October, 1867 (this suit being then pending), filed his petition in the court in Ohio, where the original judgment was rendered, setting forth the several matters contained in his answer, and praying that the judgment might be set aside and the petitioner (the present defendant) allowed to make his defense. The present plaintiff was made a party defendant, and filed his answer traversing the allegations of the petition in that proceeding. The case was tried, and the issues were found against the...