What of the inhab were during the war all the inhabitants of the country controlled by the relations the rebellion and all the inhabitants of the country loyal to the itants of the Union were enemies reciprocally each of the other. But there is rebel States nothing in that opinion which gives countenance to the doctrine to those loy- which counsel endeavor to deduce from it: that the insurgent al to the Union? States, by the act of rebellion, and by levying war against the nation, became foreign States, and their inhabitants alien enemies. United States v. Shortridge. Id. What is the effect of se Held, that the enforced payment of a debt under the confederate sequestration laws, was no protection. It was denied that the questration? Confederate States was a de facto government. What war is For the enumeration of the acts of treason in England, see 4 Steph. Com. 185-193; 4 Bl. Com. 76–84; Wharton's American Crim. Law, B. 7, ch. 1, § 2715-2777. Burrill's Law Dic., TREASON. There must be an actual levying of war; a conspiracy to subvert necessary? the government by force is not treason; nor is the mere enlistment of men, who are not assembled, a levying of war. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75; United States v. Hanway, 2 Wall. Jr. 140; Id. 136; 4 Am. L. J. 83. And no man can be convicted of treason, who was not present when the war was levied. 2 Burr's Trial, 401, 439; and see the same case, Appendix to 4 Cranch, 469–508. See United States v. Willberger, 5 Wheat. 97. From whence copied ? What is a levying of war? To what refer? The whole definition is copied from the statute of 25 Ed. III., ch. 2; 1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 259; Judge Marshall's charge in Burr's Trial; Story's Const. § 1799. See 3 Wilson's Law Lect., ch. 5, pp. 95, 96; Montesquieu Spirit of Laws, B. 12, ch. 7; 4 Bl. Com. 75-84. The definition admits of no constructive treasons. Federalist, No. 43; Story's Const. § 1798; Jefferson's Correspondence, 72-103. But If war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. there must be an actual assemblage of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levy of war. (Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 126; United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. 469-508; Sergts. Const. ch. 30 [32]; People v. Lynch, 1 John. 553.) And further, for the definition of treason, see United States v. Hoxie, 1 Paine, 265; United States v. Hanway, 2 Wallace, Jr. 139; Regina v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 129; 2 Bishop on Cr. Law, § 1032. Treason is a breach of allegiance, and can be committed by him only, who owes allegiance either perpetual or temporary. United States v. Willberger, 5 Wheat. 97. 216. Two WITNESSES.-The evidence, it seems, refers to the trial does it proofs on trial, and not to the preliminary hearing before the committing magistrate, or the proceeding before the grand inquest. United States v. Hanway, 2 Wall. Jr. 138; 1 Burr's Trial, 196. But see Fries's Trial, 14 Whart. St. Tr. 480, and the same in 2 pamphlet, 171. There must be, as there should be, the concurrence of two witnesses to the same overt act, that is, open act of treason, who are above all reasonable exception. (United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. 469, 496, 503, 505, 506, 607; Greenleaf's Ev. § 237.) limitation [2.] The Congress shall have power to declare the What is the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason on the shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, during the life of the person attainted. punish except ment? 217. PUNISHMENT OF TREASON.-Punishment is the penalty of Define the law, inflicted after judgment or sentence. For the English punishpunishment of treason, see Story's Const. § 1298, and notes. The punishment was first declared by Congress to be death by hanging. Act of 30th April, 1790, ch. 36, 1 St. 112, § 1, note (a). It is now death or imprisonment. Act of 17th January, 1862, 12 St. 589, 590. See 1 Brightly's Digest, 201, § 1, notes a to h; Wharton's Criminal Laws, § 1117-1120; Id. 2719-2736; 2 Brightly, 100, 101. ATTAINDER OF TREASON.-See Bill of Attainder, note 142. ment? 142. of blood? "CORRUPTION OF BLOOD."--By corruption of blood all inheritable Define qualities are destroyed; so that an attainted person can neither corruption inherit lands nor other hereditaments from his ancestors, nor retain those he is already in possession of, nor transmit them to any heir. Story's Const. § 1299, 1300; 4 Bl. Com. 381-388. The power of punishing treason against the United States is exclusively in Congress. (The People v. Lynch, 11 Johns. 553; Rawle's Const. ch. 11, pp. 140-143; Id. ch. 21, p. 207; Sergeant's Const. ch. 30 [ch. 32.]; Story's Const. § 1301. ARTICLE IV. shall be what acts, SEC. I.-Full faith and credit shall be given in each What credit State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceed given to ings of every other State. And the Congress may- &c.? by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and Who may prescribe the effect thereof. the proofs? 218. "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT," as the cases cited will show, Define full means that credit, which the State itself gives, not to the mode of faith? proof, but to the acts when proven. "PUBLIC ACTS."-This has reference to the legislative acts and Public resolves; that is, to the laws of the State. acts? 19 RECORDS are the registration of deeds or the civil law records Records? of titles, as in Louisiana, the registration of wills, public documents, archives, legislative journals; and, in fact, all acts, legislative, executive, judicial, and ministerial, which constitute the public records of a State. McGrew v. Watrous, 16 Tex. 509, 512; White v. Burnley, 20 How. 250; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 3710, note 835. Define judicial JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS are the proceedings and judgments proceedwhich appertain to courts of record. ings? What is the rule where jurisdiction has attached? What is the effect of a judgment? Where the jurisdiction has attached, the judgment is conclusive for all purposes, and is not open to any inquiry upon the merits. (Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Massachusetts, 462; United States Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 7 Gill, 430.) Christmas v. Russel, 5 Wall. 302. "If a judgment is conclusive in the State where it was pronounced, it is equally conclusive everywhere" in the courts of the United States. (Story's Const. § 1313, 3d ed.) Id. 302. By that statute (of Mississippi) it was enacted that "no action shall be maintained on any judgment or decree rendered by any court without this State, against any person who, at the time of the commencement of the action in which such judgment or decree was or shall be rendered, was or shall be a resident of this State, in any case where the cause of action would have been barred by any act of limitation of this State, if such suit had been brought therein.” (Mississippi Code, 400.) This act was unconstitutional. Christ mas v. Russel, 5 Wall. 299, 302. Had it been an act merely limiting the time within which the suit should be brought, it would have been constitutional. (McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312.) Id. 300. A judgment of a State court has the same credit, validity, and offect in every other court within the United States, which it had in the State where it was rendered. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wh. 234; Sarchet v. The Davis, Crabbe, 185. And it matters not that it was commenced by an attachment of property, if the defendant afterward appeared and took defense. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wh. 129. Nor that the service was illegal. Houston v. Dunn, 13 Tex. 480. Such judgments, as far as the court rendering them had jurisdiction, are to have, in all courts, full faith and credit; and the merits of the judgment are never put in issue, with the qualification, that it must appear by the record that the party had notice. Benton v. Bergot, 10 S. & R. 242. They have not, however, by the act of Congress, full power and conclusive effect, but only such effect as they possessed in the State where the judgment was rendered. Green v. Sarmiento, 3 Wash. C. C. 17; Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. And therefore, whatever pleas would be good therein, in such State, and none others, can be pleaded in any other court within the United States. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wh. 234; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 484. Thus, it would be competent to show that the judgment was obtained by fraud, or that the court rendering it had no jurisdiction. Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Insurance Co. 2 Paine, 502; Steele v. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447; Drinkard v. Ingram, 21 Tex. 653. This has been denied as to fraud between parties and privies. Christmas v. Russel, 5 Wall. 505-508. But not to litigate the merits of the judgment. Ingram v. Drinkard, 14 Tex. 352. When the judgment of a sister State is produced, which was rendered by a court of general jurisdiction, the presumption is in favor of the power and jurisdiction until the contrary appears. (Scott v. Coleman, 5 Littel, 350; Mills v. Martin, 19 Johns. 33; 3 Wend. 267; 4 Cow. 282; 6 Wend. 447; 8 Cow. 311; Phillips's Evid., Cow. & Hill's Notes, vol. 5, p. 896, note 639.) And the plaintiff need not aver and prove the jurisdiction. Reid v. Boyd, 13 Tex. 242. Where the writ was a capias ad respondendum, and the return was, "executed personally," it was prima facie evidence of service. Reid v. Boyd, 13 Tex. 242, 243. If there has been no personal service, and if the defendant has not appeared and taken defense, the judgment of a sister State will not support an action. Notice or appearance is essential to the jurisdiction. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 460; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 208. Notice by publication is not sufficient. Boswell's Lessee_v. Otis, 9 How. 350; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 Comst. 135; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 481; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 330. And see the notes in American Leading Cases, vol. 2, p. 551; 3 Phillips's Ev., Cow. & Hill's Notes, p. 353, note 636. Web want of If a court of any State should render judgment against a man What is the not within the State, nor bound by its laws, or amenable to the effect of jurisdiction of the court, if that judgment should be produced in jurisdiction? another State, against the defendant, the jurisdiction of the court' might be inquired into; and if a want of jurisdiction appeared, no credit would be given to the judgment. Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Pet. C. C. 20; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Woodward v. Tremere, 9 Pick. 355; Schaffer v. Yates, 2 Mon. 253; Batwick v. Hopkins, 4 Ga. 48; Towns (Gov.) v. Springer, 9 Ga. 132; The Central Bank of Georgia v. Gibson, 11 Ga. 455; Darcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165. And the judgment may be shown to be void, collaterally, for want of personal service. ster v. Reid, 11 How. 460; Gleason v. Dodd, 4 Met. 333; Lincoln v. Trevor, 2 McLean, 473. Where the original process was attachment and publication, and no personal service, and judgment was rendered in California, and suit brought upon this judgment in Texas the California judgment was rightly held to be void. Green v. Custard, 23 How. 486. But where a suit was brought in chancery, in Mississippi, and the defendants were served with process, and appeared and answered, and the chancellor rendered a decree dismissing the bill; and two years afterward, a writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court, and an affidavit filed that the defendants were not within the jurisdiction, and had no counsel within the jurisdiction, and citation to appear and defend the writ of error was published in a newspaper; after which the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, and rendered a decree against the defendants, which judgment was perfected by the chancellor; and upon this judgment suit was brought in the United States District Court of Texas: Held, that the judgment or decree was not a nullity, as it would have been had there been no original service. Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 203. Some of the courts have strongly intimated that a law which should make a judgment, obtained without personal service, the foundation of an action, would be unconstitutional and void. And some of them go much further, and lay down the rule as applicable to the inception of the suit, that notice by publication is insufficient to support the judgment in any jurisdiction, except in the courts of the State where it was rendered. (Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 350; Oakley v. Aspinwall, 4 Comst. 513.) Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 203. The publication in the Supreme Court will be held to be constructive service, provided the defendant was served with original process in the lower court, and appeared and How may judgments of a foreign country be proved? Define the great seal? What is the limitation upon judg ments? took defense. Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 203. A decree of a court of chancery is within this article and the act of Congress for authentication. Patrick v. Gibbs, 17 Tex. 277. And this court will not look to the formula of the decree, if the parties, and the final result be certain, so that it is a final judgment which could be enforced in the sister State from which it came. (Whiting v. The Bank, 13 Pet. 6; Ordinary v. McClure, 1 Bailey, 7.) Patrick v. Owens, 17 Tex. 278. Judgments of foreign countries may be proved:-1. By an exemplification under the great seal; 2. By a copy proved to be correct; 3. By the certificate of an officer authorized by law, which certificate must, of itself, be properly authenticated. (Church v. Hubert, 2 Cr. 187.) Phillips v. Lyons, 1 Tex. 394. The "Great Seal 19 means the seal of the nation, whether the country be a monarchy or a republic. Phillips v. Lyons, 1 Tex. 394. The seal of one of the States of the American Union, is not the "Great Seal." Id.; Wellborn v. Carr, Id. 469. In a suit upon a judgment obtained in courts other than the courts of the State, the limitation prescribed by the law of the forum will bar the action, although the period be shorter than that prescribed for judgments of the State where the suit was brought. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Story's Conflict of Laws, § 582; Robinson v. Peyton, 4 Tex. 278; Pryor v. Moore, 8 Tex. 252; Bacon v. Howard, 20 How. 23. First, that the statute of limitations of Georgia can be pleaded to an action in that State, founded upon a judgment rendered in the State of South Carolina; and, secondly, that in the administration of assets in Georgia, a judgment rendered in South Carolina, upon a promissory note against the intestate when in life, should not be paid in preference to simple contract debts. Mills v. Duryee; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 330. Affirmed in a Texas case. Bacon v. Howard, 20 How. 25. There is no clause in the Constitution which restrains this right in each State to legislate upon the remedy in suits on judgment of other States, exclusive of all interference with their merits. Id. The act of the congress of Texas, of 25th June, 1845, which prescribed the time within which suits on judgments rendered in foreign States should be brought, having been passed before annexation, was not subject to this provision of the Constitution of the United States; but if it had been, the law would not have been unconstitutional. Robinson v. Peyton, 4 Tex. 278; Pryor v. Moore, 8 Tex. 250; Bacon v. Howard, 20 How. 22. It has been held, under the Texas statute of limitations, that the same rule applies to a judgment of a sister State as to a judgment of this State. (Clay v. Clay, 13 Tex. 195; Allison v. Nash, 16 Id. 560.) Spann v. Crummerford, 20 Tex. 220. Are the Judgments of another State are not prima facie, but conclusive judgments evidence of debt. They can be impeached on such grounds only as prima facie would be good against a judgment of a sister State. Clay v. Clay, or conclu13 Tex. 204. The judgments rendered before a justice of the peace of a sister State, are not judgments of courts of record within this article, unless it be averred and proved that the State law had made them so. Beal v. Smith, 14 Tex. 309. The opinion reviews the authorities in Cowen & Hill's Notes to Phillips's Evidence, Part 2, sive? |