Traders' Trust Co. v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 25 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21927.,21927. |
| Citation | 146 Minn. 224,178 N.W. 735 |
| Parties | TRADERS' TRUST CO. v. DAVIDSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.
Action by the Traders' Trust Company against Walter P. Davidson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
A court must acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant before it can render a judgment in personam against him.
While a foreign court of general jurisdiction which renders a judgment in personam is generally presumed to have had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties unless want of jurisdiction is disclosed by the record, there are several exceptions to this rule.
If the defendant was beyond the jurisdiction of the court and did not voluntarily appear therein, there is no presumption of jurisdiction over him and the party asserting the judgment must prove the existence of the facts necessary to establish such jurisdiction.
If authority to render the judgment rests on a statute and the proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, nothing is presumed in favor of the judgment, and the record must show the existence of all the facts necessary to authorize the court to render it.
Foreign judgments will be given no greater effect here than the foreign country gives to like judgments of our courts.
Giving a proxy to vote at a shareholders' meeting against having the corporation appeal from a winding-up order made by a foreign court does not authorize such court to render a personal judgment against the shareholder, although the meeting was called by order of the court.
An order appointing counsel to appear for and represent the shareholders in a Manitoba corporation, made by a Manitoba court pursuant to a provision of the Manitoba winding-up act, could not authorize such counsel to make a personal appearance in that court for a shareholder over whom the court had no jurisdiction.
The existence of a foreign law is a fact to be proven, and, as plaintiff has failed to prove any law of Manitoba making membership as a shareholder in a corporation operate as a consent that service on the corporation shall give jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the shareholder, and as no other service was made on defendant in Manitoba and defendant did not appear in the Manitoba court, that court had no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against him. O'Brien, Young, Stone & Horn, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Cray & Eaton, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Plaintiff is a corporation of the province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada, and defendant is a citizen and resident of the city of St. Paul, in this state. Plaintiff was appointed liquidator of the Colonial Assurance Company, an insolvent Manitoba corporation, by the Court of King's Bench of the province of Manitoba in proceedings for winding up that corporation under the Winding-up Act of Canada. Plaintiff, alleging that as such liquidator it had recovered a personal judgment against defendants in the Court of King's Bench of the province of Manitoba, brought this action thereon for the purpose of obtaining a personal judgment against him in this state. The principal question presented is whether the Manitoba court had jurisdiction of the person of defendant. If it did not, it could not render a judgment against him in personam whatever effect the judgment might have on his property and property rights within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 24 L. Ed. 565;Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U. S. 41, 12 Sup. Ct. 541, 36 L. Ed. 338; 7 Ruling Case Law, 1041, § 73; 15 Ruling Case Law, 919, §§ 400, 401; 13 Am. & Eng. Ency. 999, 1028; Cabanne v. Graf, 87 Minn. 510, 92 N. W. 461,59 L. R. A. 735, 94 Am. St. Rep. 722;Plummer v. Hatton, 51 Minn. 181, 53 N. W. 460;Kading v. Waters, 137 Minn. 328, 163 N. W. 521.
Defendant was never a citizen or resident of Manitoba, and was never served with a summons or other process in the action within Manitoba, and never voluntarily appeared in the action, although plaintiff claims that certain matters to be mentioned later operated as an appearance therein.
Where an action is brought on a judgment in personam rendered by a foreign court of general jurisdiction, it is the general rule that the foreign court will be presumed to have had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties thereto, and that the judgment will be given full force and effect as binding and conclusive on such parties; but there are several exceptions to this rule. Of course if the record discloses lack of jurisdiction over the defendant the judgment is a nullity.
If the defendant was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court and did not voluntarily appear in the action, there is no presumption of jurisdiction over his person, and the burden of establishing such jurisdiction is cast on the party invoking the benefit of the judgment. Galpin v. Page, 85 U. S. 350, 21 L. Ed. 959;Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N. E. 6,12 L. R. A. 574, 26 Am. St. Rep. 210;Downer v. Shaw, 22 N. H. 277;Shepard v. Wright, 113 N. Y. 582,21 N. W. 724.
If the authority to render the judgment is given by statute, and the proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, there is no presumption in favor of the judgment, and, if the record fails to show the existence of all the facts necessary to give the court authority to render it, the judgment is of no effect. Galpin v. Page, 85 U. S. 350, 21 L. Ed. 959;Rand v. Hanson, 154 Mass. 87, 28 N. E. 6,12 L. R. A. 574, 26 Am. St. Rep. 210;Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Mass. 111, 36 N. E. 837,25 L. R. A. 806, 42 Am. St. Rep. 389; Prentiss v. Parks, 65 Me. 559; Coleman v. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38 Mich. 30;Kohn, Leberman & Co. v. Hass, 95 Ala. 478,12 South. 577;Furgeson v. Jones, 17 Or. 204, 20 Pac. 842,3 L. R. A. 620, 11 Am. St. Rep. 808; Anderson v. Haddon, 33 Hun, 435.
Effect is given to foreign judgments as a matter of comity and reciprocity, and it has become the rule to give no other or greater effect to the judgment of a foreign court than the country or state whose court rendered it gives to a like judgment of our courts. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 227, 16 Sup. Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95. And we may note in passing that in Manitoba a foreign judgment does not conclude the defendant even as to the merits. International, etc., Corporation v. G. N. W. C. Ry. Co., 9 Man. 147; British Linen Co. v. McEwan, 6 Man. 292; British Linen Co. v. McEwan, 8 Man. 99.
As defendant is a resident and citizen of this state, and was not served with process in Manitoba, and the proceedings in question rest wholly on a Manitoba statute and are not according to the course of the common law, the judgment in personam against him is a nullity and of no effect in this state, unless plaintiff has established affirmatively that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial