Vennum v. Mertens

• Decision Date: 08 May 1906
• Citation: 119 Mo. App. 461,95 S.W. 292
• Parties: VENNUM v. MERTENS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

95 S.W. 292

119 Mo. App. 461

VENNUM v. MERTENS.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 8, 1906.

1. JUDGMENT — WARRANT OF ATTORNEY TO CONFESS—NOTE—WHAT LAW GOVERNS.

Where a note was payable in Illinois, and appeared to have been signed in such state, it is immaterial that it was in fact signed elsewhere, and the validity of a judgment confessed by attorney, as authorized by the note, is governed by the laws of Illinois.

2. SAME—FULL FAITH AND CREDIT—FOREIGN JUDGMENT.

A judgment or confession on warrant of attorney, valid in the state where taken, is valid in this state, under Const. U. S. art. 4, § 1, which requires the courts of each state to give full faith and credit to judgments of sister states.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Joseph J. Williams, Judge.

Action by F. B. Vennum against Henry A. Mertens. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. D. Irwin, for appellant. J. F. Green and Ernest F. Green, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.

The suit is on a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Ford county in the state of Illinois at the April term, 1905, of said court. The suit on which the judgment was rendered was to recover the sum due on the following promissory note, which was duly indorsed by the payee and delivered to plaintiff on the day of its date, to wit: "$750. Bloomington, Ill., March 27, 1904. Sixty date after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of the William R. White Company seven hundred fifty dollars, at the McLean County Bank, Bloomington, Ill., with interest at seven per cent. per annum after date until paid. And to secure the payment of said amount I hereby authorize, irrevocably, any attorney of any court of record to appear for me in such court, in term time or vacation, at any time hereafter, and confess a judgment, without process, in favor of the holder of this note, for such amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, together with costs and ten per cent. of the principal amount as attorney's fees, and to waive and release all errors which may intervene in any such proceedings, and consent to immediate execution upon such judgment. P. O. De Soto, Mo. Henry A. Mertens."

The defendant was not served with process, and did not appear in person to the suit; but the record of the proceedings show that E. M. Rhodes, an attorney at law, appeared for defendant, and filed an answer, waiving the issuance of process, confessing the execution of the note and the amount due thereon, and confessing that judgment might be rendered therefor. Plaintiff offered in evidence the judgment roll, the entry of the judgment on the records of the Illinois circuit court, duly authenticated, and section 66, c. 110, Rev. St. 1899, of Illinois, which provides: "Any person, for any debt bona fide due, may confess judgment by himself...