PHELPS et al. verʃus HOLKER et al.
A
FOREIGN attachment iffued in the Hampʃhire county, in the State of Maʃʃachuʃetts, againft the Defendants, to which the Sheriff made return, that “ he had attached one Blanket, fhewn to him as the reputed property of the Defendnts;” and no appearance being entered, Judgment was given for the Plaintiff at the fecond Term. An action of debt was afterwards brought here, upon this Judgment, and a queftion stated for the opinion of the Court,–to wit, “ whether the Judgment was conclufive evidence of the debt?”Ingerʃoll, for the Plaintiff.−An action of debt lies upon Foreign Judgments ; though, it is true, they are only prima ƒacie evidence of the debt, and may be enquired into Doug. 1. But the Judgment, upon which the prefent action is brought, cannot be confidered as a foreign Judgment, for, it is the record of 2 Court of one of the States of the Union, and, as fuch, it is entitled to ƒull ƒaith and credit in each of them. Art oƒ Conƒed. 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,
1788.
mutual faith and credit fhall be given to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the States. But even if they were not, in this refpect, generally confidered as ƒoreign Judgments, the inconveniency and injuftice of receiving them as concluʃive evidence, when obtained by the procefs of a Foreign attachment, muft neceffarily create an exception. The prefent Judgment was obtained in a Foreign attachment, which is ftrictly a proceeding in rem. No defence was made, nor was any notice given to the Defendant, or to any perfon in his behalf ; but the mere attachment of a blanket, reputed to be his property, is the fole foundation upon which the jurifdiction of the Court, the moft inquitous and oppreffive confequences would enfue. A Judgment might be entered in Georgia, or New-Hampʅhire againft a citizen of this State, upon a fictitious and fraudulent claim, and it would be impoffible that he fhould obtain any redrefs, fince his firft knowledge of the fuit, would be the production of that record, into the juftice of which, it is contended, the Court cannot examine, but muft admit the Judgment it recites, as concluʃive evidence of the Plaintiff's demand. The Court will not conftrue the Articles of Confederation, fo as to introduce and tolerate an evil of fuch enormity ; and of which the prefent cafe would be a ftriking example.
Ingerʃoll, in reply.– The fubject before the Court is naturally divided into two points : 1ft, Whether a Judgment in a Sifter State, is of no other force in Pennʃylvania, than a Judgment in the Courts of England or Ireland? and 2dly, Whether there is any difference between Judgment in a Foreign attachment, and one obtained in any other fpecies of action?
1ft Upon the firʃt point, it is to be obferved, that although the rule is eftablifhed in Europe, that an action may be brought on a foreign Judgment, which is there received as prima ƒacie evidence of the debt, there is ftill this difference between foreign and domeʃtic records, that the former may be examined into, but the latter cannot be controverted or denied. Of this diftinction the authors of the Articles of Confederation muft have been perfectly apprized ; and, therefore, it is reafonable to prefume, that by introducing an exprefs provifion upon the fubject, they intended to place the States upon a different footing with refpect to each other, than with refpect to foreign nations : for, if they did not mean to make any alteration in the fyftem already eftablifhed, between independent and unconnected countries, they would either have been totally filent, or they would have qualified the terms of the article, fo as to have met their object fully and unequivocally. But, having premifed, that “the free inhabitants of each State fhall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the feveral States.” (so that, in fact a citizen of New-Hampʃhire the moment he enters South Carolina, derives from this fentence, a title to the privileges of citizenfhip in that Commonwealth alfo) the articles concludes, that “full faith and credit
‘fhall be given in each of thefe States to the Records, acts, and
‘‘ judicial proceedings of the Courts and Magiftrates 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 Swiʃs Cantons do not furnifh a ftrict analogy) and its defign muft certainly have been to form a ftronger cement, than that by which the States themfelves 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 Siʃter State fhould have no greater force, or validity, than a judgment in France, or England, would it not have been abfurd to fay that “ ƒull faith and credit fhall be given,” when nothing more was required, than that the record fhould be confidered as prima ƒacie evidence of a fact, which was ftill liable to exception and denial ? On the other hand, if it is admitted that by this article, the authors of the fyftem intended to make a Judgment in New-Jerʃey as binding in Pennʃylvania, as if it had been obtained in any County oƒ this State, no other form of words, or mode of expreffion, could have been felected more clearly to convey that intention. The very term Record muft be conclufive ; for what is a record in one State, by this article, becomes fuch in every State, and it is the nature of a record to preclude every idea of fcrutiny and contradiction.
2d. With refpect to the fecond point ; there can be no difference between a Judgment in a Foreign attachment, and one obtained in any other fpecies of action, fince the Defendant, by entering fpecial bail at any time before payment of the money, may diffolve the attachment, and conteft the Plaintiff's demand in that Court, in which it was originally made. Nor is it a greater hardfhip to compel him to do fo, than it is to require the Plaintiff to bring all his witneffes hither from a diftant State. Befides, in cafes of attachment, Judgment is never given before the fecond term, and the Garniʃhee has always in his power to fend notice to the Defendant.
The Court expreffing a defire to hear the laws of Maʃʃachuʃetts upon the fubject of Attachments, Ingerʃoll, read the following fections from a law of that State paffed ann' 32 G. 2 Sect. 2 “ It fhall
‘‘ and may be lawful for any perfons entitled to any action &c.
‘‘ againft any perfon abʃconding or abʃent out oƒ this Province to caufe
‘‘ the goods and eftate of fuch abfconding or abfent perfon to be at-
‘‘tached in the whofe hands foever the fame are or may be found : and
‘‘ the attaching any part thereof fhall fecure and make the whole
‘‘ that is in fuch perfons hands liable in the law to refpond the Judg-
‘‘ment to be recovered upon fuch procefs, it fo much there be, and
‘‘no farther, and fhall be fubjected to be taken in execution for fa-
‘‘ tisfaction thereof, or fo far as the value thereof will extend, and
‘‘ the perfon in whofe hands they are fhall expofe them accordingly.’’ Sect. 3. prefcribes the notice (i.e. a fummons and copy of the declaration to be given to the agent &c. of the debtor, in cafe no goods appear, which being duly ferved and returned, is made fufficient to being forward a trial, without further fummons, ‘‘ unlefs the
1788.
principal be an inhabitant, or hath for fometime had his refidence had his refidence within this province;’’ in which cafe, a like fummons and copy of the declaration fhall be left at his laft place of abode 14 days before the Court. The principal fhall be received to defend the fuit, “ and an imparlance fhall be granted at two terms fucceffively, and at the 3d term, without good caufe the action fhall be tried;” and, if Judgment be rendered for the Plaintiff, all the goods, effects, or credits of fuch abfent or abfconding perfon in the hands of fuch attorney &c. at the time of being ferved with the fummons to the value of fuch Judgment (if fo much there be) fhall be liable and fubjected to the execution granted upon such Judgment for or towards fatisfying the fame &c. ‘‘ Sect. 4. provides, that, if the attorney &c. fummoned fhall come in the firʃt term and fwear that he has no effects, the Plaintiff fhall be nonfuited with cofts.’’ Sect. 8. “ Any abfconding or abfent
‘‘ perfon againft whom Judgment fhall be recovered as aforefaid,
‘‘ fhall be entitled to a review of the fame at any time within
‘‘ three years after fuch recovery.”
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice. – This is a proceeding in rem, and ought not certainly to be extended further than the property attached. If that is fufficient to fatisfy the Plaintiff, he has done well to fecure himfelf ; but in the prefent action the Judgment obtained in Maʃʃachuʃetts cannot be confidered as conclufive evidence of the debt, and, therefore, the Defendant ought ftill to be at liberty to controvert and deny it. The articles of Confederation muft not be conftrued to work fuch evident mifchief and injuftice, as are contained in the doctrine, urged for the Plaintiff.
RUSH, Juʃtice.– If this Judgment were as conclufive as the Plaintiff contends, might he not iffue an execution at once? But I am likewife of opinion, that it is examinable in the prefent action.
BRYAN,Juʃtice.– By the very words of the Maʃʃachuʃetts act, it is declared, that the judgment and execution in a Foreign attachment, fhall only go againft the goods attached.
ATLER,Juʃtice.– Concurred.
by the court:– The Judgment obtained in the Court of the State of Maʃʃachuʃetts, in a Foreign attachment, between the fame parties, is not concluʃive evidence, in this caufe, of the debt claimed by the Plaintiff. [♦]