Welch v. Sykes

• Decision Date: 31 December 1846
• Citation: 44 Am.Dec. 689,3 Gilman 197,8 Ill. 197,1846 WL 3844
• Parties: UPTON D. WELCH et al.v.JAMES SYKES.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

3 Gilman 197

8 Ill. 197

1846 WL 3844 (Ill.)

44 Am.Dec. 689

UPTON D. WELCH et al.

v.JAMES SYKES.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1846.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

DEBT on a judgment of a court in Maryland, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error, in the Clark circuit court, and heard before the Hon. WILLIAM WILSON, on a demurrer to pleas, which was sustained. The substance of those pleas will appear in the opinion of the court.

A. LINCOLN, for the plaintiffs in error.

C. H. CONSTABLE, for the defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by TREAT, J.^a1

This action was commenced in the Clark circuit court by Sykes against Welch and others. Watson, one of the defendants, only was served with process. The declaration was in debt on a judgment recovered by Sykes against the defendants, in the Ann Arundel County court, in the state of Maryland, on the 26th of October, 1835, for $340.00 debt, and $10.84 damages. Watson appeared and pleaded seven pleas. The court sustained a demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas; and the defendant thereupon withdrew the other pleas, and the plaintiff had judgment for his debt and damages. The decision of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to the pleas is assigned for error.

The third plea alleges, that from the commencement of the suit in Maryland until the rendition of the judgment therein, the defendant resided in the state of Ohio, and during all of that time was not within the limits of the state of Maryland, and that he never appeared in person, nor authorized any one to appear for him.

The fourth plea alleges in substance, that from the commencement of the suit until the rendition of the judgment, the defendant resided in Ohio and was not in Maryland, and that he did not appear in the suit in person or by attorney.

The fifth and sixth pleas aver generally, that the defendant was never served with process, and that he had no notice of the pendency of the suit.

Under the constitution of the United States and the laws of congress made in pursuance thereof, the judgments in personam of the various states are placed on the footing of domestic judgments; and they are to receive the same credit and effect when sought to be enforced in different states, as they by law or usage have in the particular states where rendered. A judgment, fairly and duly obtained in one state, is conclusive between the parties when sued on in another state. The defendant may show, in bar of an action on the record of a judgment of another state, that the judgment was fraudulently obtained, or that the court pronouncing it had neither jurisdiction of his person, nor of the subject matter of the action. If he succeed in establishing any one of these defences, the judgment is entitled to no credit, and the plaintiff is driven to his suit on the original cause of action. Bimeler v. Dawson, 4 Scam. 536, and the cases there cited. The defendant may admit the existence of the record, and set up by special plea any of these matters of defence in avoidance of the judgment. Harrod v. Barretto, 2 Hall 302; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Starbuck v. Murray, 5 do. 148. The plaintiff may traverse the allegations of the plea, or reply new matter in avoidance. The record of the judgment is to be used as evidence in the trial of the issue; and when introduced, affords conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it. Thus, if the record shows affirmatively that the defendant was personally served with process, or personally appeared to the action, it furnishes conclusive evidence of the fact stated, and the defendant can not controvert it. Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Rust v. Frothingham, Bre. 258. If either of these facts clearly and distinctly appear on the face of the record, the plaintiff may reply that the defendant is estopped by the record from denying that the court had jurisdiction over his person. Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232. If the record states that the defendant appeared by attorney, it is conclusive proof that the attorney appeared for him, but only prima facie evidence of the authority of the attorney to appear, and which latter fact the defendant is at full liberty to disprove. Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447. The pleas in question seek to invalidate the judgment declared on, by showing that the court in which it was...