A Foreign attachment issued in Hampshire county, in the State of
Massachusetts, against the Defendants, to which the Sheriff made
return, that 'he had attached one Blanket, shown to him as the
reputed property of the Defendants;' and no appearance being
entered, Judgment was given for the Plaintiff at the second Term.
An action of debt was afterwards brought here, upon this Judgment,
and a question stated for the opinion of the Court, to wit,
'whether the Judgment was conclusive evidence of the debt?'
Ingersoll, for the Plaintiff. An action of debt lies upon
Foreign Judgments; though, it is true, they are only prima facie
evidence of the debt, and may be enquired into. Doug. 1. But the
Judgment, upon which the present action is brought, cannot be
considered as a foreign Judgment, for, it is the record of a Court
of one of the States of the Union, and, as such, it is entitled to
full faith and credit in each of them. Art. of Confed. art. 4.
Bowie, for the Defendant. Judgments given in one State, are not
made obligatory upon the Courts of another, by the Articles of
Confederation; which only provide, that, in matters of
evidence,
Page 1 U.S.
261, 262
mutual faith and credit shall be given to the records, acts, and
judicial proceedings of the States. But even if they were not, in
this respect, generally considered as foreign Judgments, the
inconveniency and injustice of receiving them as conclusive
evidence, when obtained by the process of a Foreign attachment,
must necessarily create an exception. The present Judgment was
obtained in a Foreign attachment, which is strictly a proceeding in
rem. No defence was made, nor was any notice given to the
Defendant, or to any person in his behalf; but the mere attachment
of a blanket, reputed to be his property, is the sole foundation
upon which the jurisdiction of the Court in Massachusetts has been
exercised. If, therefore, the construction raised by the Plaintiff,
were to be received by the Court, the most iniquitous and
oppressive consequences would ensue. A Judgment might be entered in
Georgia, or New Hampshire against a citizen of this State, upon a
fictitious and fraudulent claim, and it would be impossible that he
should obtain any redress, since his first knowledge of the suit,
would be the production of that record, into the justice of which,
it is contended, the Court cannot examine, but must admit the
Judgment it recites, as conclusive evidence of the Plaintiff's
demand. The Court will not construe the Articles of Confederation,
so as to introduce and tolerate an evil of such enormity; and of
which the present case would be a striking example.
Ingersoll, in reply. The subject before the Court is naturally
divided into two points: 1st, Whether a Judgment in a Sister State,
is of no other force in Pennsylvania, than a Judgment in the Courts
of England or Ireland? and 2ndly, Whether there is any difference
between a Judgment in a Foreign attachment, and one obtained in any
other species of action?
1st. Upon the first point, it is to be observed, that although
the rule is established in Europe, that an action may be brought on
a foreign Judgment, which is there received as prima facie evidence
of the debt, there is still this difference between foreign and
domestic records, that the former may be examined into, but the
latter cannot be controverted or denied. Of this distinction the
authors of the Articles of Confederation must have been perfectly
apprized; and, therefore, it is reasonable to presume, that by
introducing an express provision upon the subject, they intended to
place the States upon a different footing with respect to each
other, than with respect to foreign nations: for, if they did not
mean to make any alteration in the system already established,
between independent and unconnected countries, they would either
have been totally silent, or they would have qualified the terms of
the article, so as to have met their object fully and
unequivocally. But, having premised, that 'the free inhabitants of
each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
free citizens in the several States' (so that, in fact, a citizen
of New Hampshire the moment he enters South Carolina, derives from
this sentence, a title to the privileges of citizenship in that
Commonwealth also) the article concludes, that 'full faith and
credit
Page 1 U.S.
261, 263
shall be given in each of these States to the Records, acts, and
judicial proceedings of the Courts and Magistrates of every other
State.' See Art. 4. This then is a Union of which no precedent is
to be found in any other part of the globe (for the Swiss Cantons
do not furnish a strict analogy) and its design must certainly have
been to form a stronger cement, than that by which the States
themselves were hitherto connected, or by which they are, at this
day, connected with other nations. If, indeed, it was intended by
this article, that a judgment in a Sister State should have no
greater force, or validity, than a judgment in France, or England,
would it not have been absurd to say that 'full faith and credit
shall be given,' when nothing more was required, than that the
record should be considered as prima facie evidence of a fact,
which was still liable to exception and denial? On the other hand,
if it is admitted that by this article, the authors of the system
intended to make a Judgment in New Jersey as binding in
Pennsylvania, as if it had been obtained in any County of this
State, no other form of words, or mode of expression, could have
been selected more clearly to convey that intention. The very term
Record must be conclusive; for what is a record in one State, by
this article, becomes such in every State, and it is the nature of
a record to preclude every idea of scrutiny and contradiction. 2nd.
With respect to the second point; there can be no difference
between a Judgment in a Foreign attachment, and one obtained in any
other species of action, since the Defendant, by entering special
bail at any time before payment of the money, may dissolve the
attachment, and contest the Plaintiff's demand in that Court, in
which it was originally made. Nor is it a greater hardship to
compel him to do so, than it is to require the Plaintiff to bring
all his witnesses hither from a distant State. Besides, in cases of
attachment, Judgment is never given before the second term, and the
Garnishee has it always in his power to send notice to the
Defendant. The Court expressing a desire to hear the laws of
Massachusetts, upon the subject of Attachments, Ingersoll, read the
following sections from a law of that State passed anno 32. G. 2.
Sect. 2. 'It shall and may be lawful for any persons entitled to
any action &c. against any person absconding or absent out of
this Province to cause the goods and estate of such absconding or
absent person to be attached in whose hands soever the same are or
may be found: and the attaching any part thereof shall secure and
make the whole that is in such persons hands liable in the law to
respond the Judgment to be recovered upon such process, if so much
there be, and no farther, and shall be subjected to be taken in
execution for satisfaction thereof, or so far as the value therof
will extend, and the person in whose hands they are shall expose
them accordingly.' Sect. 3. prescribes the notice (i.e. a summons
and copy of the declaration) to be given to the agent &c. of
the debtor, in case no goods appear, which being duly served and
returned, is made sufficient to bring forward a trial, without
further summons, 'unless the principal
Page 1 U.S.
261, 264
be an inhabitant, or hath for sometime had his residence within
this province;' in which case, a like summons and copy of the
declaration shall be left at his last place of abode 14 days before
the Court. The principal shall be received to defend the suit, 'and
an imparlance shall be granted at two terms successively, and at
the 3rd term, without good cause the action shall be tried;' and,
if Judgment be rendered for the Plaintiff, all the goods, effects,
or credits of such absent or absconding person in the hands of such
attorney &c. at the time of being served with the summons to
the value of such Judgment (if so much there be) shall be liable
and subjected to the execution granted upon such Judgment for or
towards satisfying the same &c 'Sect. 4. provides, that, if the
attorney & c. summoned shall come in the first term and swear
that he has no effects, the Plaintiff shall be nonsuited with
costs.' Sect. 8. 'Any absconding or absent person against whom
Judgment shall be recovered as aforesaid, shall be entitled to a
review of the same at any time within three years after such
recovery.'
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
This is a proceeding in rem, and ought not certainly to be
extended further than the property attached. If that is sufficient
to satisfy the Plaintiff, he has done well to secure himself; but
in the present action the Judgment obtained in Massachusetts cannot
be considered as conclusive evidence of the debt, and, therefore,
the Defendant ought still to be at liberty to controvert and deny
it. The articles of Confederation must not be construed to work
such evident mischief and injustice, as are contained in the
doctrine, urged for the Plaintiff.
Rush, Justice.
If this Judgment were as conclusive as the Plaintiff contends,
might he not issue an execution at once? But I am likewise of
opinion, that it is examinable in the present action.
[264-Continued.]
Bryan, Justice.
By the very words of the Massachusetts act, it is declared, that
the judgment and execution in a Foreign attachment, shall only go
against the goods attached.
Atlee, Justice.
Concurred.
By the Court: The Judgment obtained in the Court of the State of
Massachusetts, in a Foreign attachment, between the same parties,
is not conclusive evidence, in this cause, of the debt claimed by
the Plaintiff.*
Footnotes
[
Footnote *] The accuracy of this
decision will appear from the Journals of Congress, of the 12 of
January 1777, when that honorable body was considering certain
articles which were proposed to be added to the Confederation. To
the clause, that 'full faith and credit shall be given in each of
these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the
Courts and Magistrates of every other State,' it was moved to add,
'and an action of debt may be commenced in a Court of law of any
State for the recovery of a debt due on a judgment of any Court in
any other State; provided the judgment creditor shall give bond
with sufficient sureties before the said Court, in which the action
shall be brought, to answer in damages to the adverse party, in
case the original judgment shall be afterwards, revised and set
aside, and provided the party against whom such judgment may have
been obtained had notice in fact of the service of the original
writ upon which such judgment shall be founded.' But this motion
was rejected.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment