Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume IX.djvu/721

JUDGES JUDGMENT 701 Asmoneans and Romans, between Samaria on the north, the Jordan and the Dead sea on the east, Idumsea and the desert on the south, Egypt on the southwest, and the Mediterranean on the west. The limits of Judea in each of these acceptations were continually varying. (See PALESTINE, and HEBREWS.) JUDGES, Book of, one of the historical books of the Old Testament, narrating the deeds of the thirteen judges of Israel from Othniel to Samson. It is a fragmentary rather than a complete and connected history, the fullest ac- counts being given of Deborah and Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson. It begins with showing that the calamities suffered by the Hebrews after the death of Joshua were due to their apostasy from Jehovah. It is sup- posed by many that the first 16 and the remain- ing 5 chapters are by different authors. The first portion, believed by some to have been written before the time of David, is ascribed to Samuel. Most German critics, however, believe the book to have been compiled on the basis of ancient documents at a late period. According to Bertheau (Schenkel's-BiJeZZm'corc, art. ichter, Leipsic, 1873), the compiler was Ezra. The same writer also regards it as prob- able that the book of Ruth originally formed a portion of the book of Judges. Among the most important commentators on the book are Le Clerc, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Studer, Bush, Bertheau, Keil (1863), and Bachmann (1868). JUDGES OF ISRAEL. See HEBREWS. JUDGMENT, in law, a solemn determination of a question, declared by a court of record. The language used in a judgment is, that "it is considered by the court," &c., the theory be- ing that the function of the court is not to give its own decision, but to ascertain and pronounce the decision of the law. To give validity and full force to a judgment, the court which renders it must have competent jurisdiction over the case ; that is, it must be authorized by law to entertain and determine the question which it decides, and the parties, or, in case of proceed- ings in rem, the subject matter of the suit must, by process or some substitute there- for, have been brought within the authority of the court. When these circumstances concur, merely irregular action of the court or its officers will not invalidate its judgments. A judgment may be arrested and avoided, if, within the time prescribed by the rules of the court, it can be shown that there are intrinsic defects appearing of record, which are of suf- ficient importance. For, the judgment being founded upon the record, it cannot stand if the party against whom it is rendered can show that the record is inconsistent with it or insufficient for it. The more common instances of this are where there is an irreconcilable contrariety between parts of the record ; as, for example, where the judgment is founded upon a verdict which is essentially different from the plead- ings at issue. Judgments are of many kinds, for the reason that they must conform to the pleadings and issue. They are usually classed as judgments upon demurrer, on a verdict, on confession, on default, or on nonsuit. (See PLEADING.) A judgment is also interlocutory or final; and the best definition of an inter- locutory judgment is to say that it is any judg- ment which is not final, or which does not en- tirely dispose of the whole question. A judg- ment that is final and valid is the highest as- surance known to the law. Such judgments were formerly extensively used in England to operate as conveyances of land ; the party to whom the land was to be transferred com- mencing an action for it against the party who was to transfer it, and this being concluded by a judgment that the land in question belongs to the plaintiff. From the high and solemn nature of a judgment, the doctrine of merger was applied to it. If one sues another on his promise, or indebtedness of any kind, or for wrong of any kind, and recovers judgment, it is a technical rule of law that the original cause of action merges or is lost in the judgment. So, too, it was formerly thought to be well established that if one brought an action against another for depriving him unlawfully of his property, and recovered a judgment for damages, this judgment vested in the defendant a right or title to the property, although the damages were never paid nor the judgment satisfied in any way. There are writers who hold, however, that the title does not pass until execution is taken out, and still others of high authority that satisfaction of the judgment is essential ; and this, perhaps, is the better doc- trine. There is no doubt whatever that a judg- ment of a court of record may be made the foundation of a suit. If it be the judgment of a competent court in the same state, it proves itself ; and no defence can be made which does not distinctly impeach it for fraud, or for want of jurisdiction. If it be the judgment of a court of another of the United States, it falls within that clause in the federal constitution which provides that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings in every oth- er state," and authorizes congress to provide the manner in which they shall be proved. Congress, by an act passed May 26, 1790, made this provision. Under this it is held that a judgment has the same conclusive nature in another state that it has in the state in which it was rendered. The question how far a for- eign judgment, proprio vigore, has force and validity, has been discussed in many cases, with some diversity in the conclusions. On one extreme stand those who would make it a mere prima facie evidence, open to rebutter by any evidence tending to show that it ought not to have been rendered. Where this doctrine is held, it is plain that the whole case may be tried over again in the action on the judgment, with the burden of proof on the party who would set it aside. Against this are those who hold the opposite extreme, that a foreign judg-