which necessarily discriminates against the introduction and sale of the manufactures or products of another state or states, and in favor of the manufactures or products of its own citizens and against those of other states, is unconstitutional, for the same reason.'

12

PUBLIC ACTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.

111. The constitution also provides that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”

Public Acts.

This constitutional requirement implies that the public acts (that is, statutes) of every state shall be given the same effect by the courts of another state that they have by law and usage at home. This of course does not give them any ex-territorial effect, but applies only to the determination of cases which they are alleged to govern. But the courts of one state cannot take judicial notice of the laws of another state; they must be proved as facts."

Judgments and Decrees.

13

If it were not for this provision of the constitution, and the acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, the judgments and decrees of each state would be regarded as foreign judgments in the courts of every other state, and their effect would have to be determined by the principles of international law or by such other considerations as are influential in fixing the status of judicial records brought from foreign countries.1 A similar provision was found in the arti

Daniel v. Trustees of Richmond, 78 Ky. 542; State v. Lancaster, 63 N. H. 207; Rash v. Holloway, 82 Ky. 674. See In re Rudolph, 6 Sawy. 295, 2 Fed. 65.

12 Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 6 Sup. Ct. 454; Webber v. Virginia, 103 U. S. 344; Vines v. State, 67 Ala. 73.

13 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S. 615, 7 Sup. Ct. 398. 14 Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586; Warren Manuf'g Co. v. Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501, Fed. Cas. No. 17,206.

cles of confederation, and it was construed as prohibiting a re-examination on the merits of a decree rendered in a sister state.15

In pursuance of the power given to congress to prescribe the manner of authenticating the records and judicial proceedings of other states, and the effect thereof, that body early passed an act which was expressed as follows: "The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state shall be proved and admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are or shall be taken." A subsequent statute extended the provisions of this act to "the territories of the United States, and the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." 16 This statute, it is held, does not prevent a state from making such further rules, in regard to the authentication of foreign judgments, as it may deem best, provided only that they are not inconsistent with the act of congress. Neither does the statute render it inadmissible to prove such a judgment in a manner which would be sufficient at common law.17

It is now finally and firmly settled that a judgment rendered by a court of competent authority, having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, in one state, is conclusive on the merits in the courts of every other state, when made the basis of an action, and in such action the merits cannot be inquired into.18 Under this clause of the constitution, therefore, the judgment of a court in a sister state is to be accorded the same faith and credit which it re

15 Jenkins v. Putnam, 1 Bay (S. C.) 8.

16 Act May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122; Rev. St. U. S. § 905); Act March 27, 1804 (2) Stat. 298).

17 Gaines v. Relf, 12 How. 472; White v. Burnley, 20 How. 235.

18 Mills v. Duryea, 7 Cranch, 481; Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290; Insurance Co. v. Harris, 97 U. S. 331.

ceives at home. It is of a higher grade than a foreign judgment, for its effect is regulated by the constitution. But yet it is not the same as a domestic judgment, for it is not executory by itself. But the judgment, if valid at home, is to be considered valid everywhere within the United States, and if binding on the parties at home, it is conclusive in all other courts in the Union.19 But the judg ment, as already stated, is not executory in a foreign state; that is, it does not per se authorize the issue of final process or the exercise of auxiliary jurisdiction, but only when merged in a judgment recovered in the foreign state. 20 Again, judgments of one state, when sought to be enforced in the courts of another, do not enjoy the right of privilege, priority, or lien which they have in the state where they are pronounced, but only that which the lex fori gives to them by its own laws in their character of foreign judgments.21 And while the judgment is conclusive on the merits, yet it is open to the party who desires to assail it to show that it is not in effect a valid and subsisting judgment, such as is entitled to the benefit of the constitutional provision. Thus, he may show that the judgment has been set aside by the court which rendered it, or reversed by an appellate court. Further, he may show anything which goes in discharge of the judgment, as that it has been paid, or released, or compromised. Also he may show that the judgment, as a cause of action, is barred by the statute of limitations of the state where the judgment is sought to be enforced, if that statute is so framed as to include judgments.2 So also, the party may deny that the court which rendered the judgment had jurisdiction of his person or of the subject matter of the suit, and thereupon it becomes the duty of the court where the record is offered to inquire into the allegation, and if it is found that there was such a lack of jurisdiction, then the judgment must not be en

19 Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall. 302, Fed. Cas. No. 543; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195; Field v. Gibbs, 1 Pet. C. C. 155, Fed. Cas. No. 4,766; Bryant v. Hunter, 3 Wash. C. C. 48, Fed. Cas. No. 2,068.

20 Claflin v. McDermott, 12 Fed. 375; Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. 415. 21 McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Story, Confl. Laws, § 609.

22 McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Napier v. Gidiere, 1 Speer, Eq. 215;

Reid v. Boyd, 13 Tex. 241; Jacquette v. Hugunon, 2 McLean, 129, Fed. Cas. No. 7,169.

forced against him.23 But the judgment is not impeachable in the courts of another state on the ground of any mere error or irregularity, or upon any allegations that it was unjust or ill-founded. And it seems also (though the point is not entirely free from doubt) that fraud in the obtaining of the judgment is not a good defense, for the party who desires to avoid it on the ground of fraud has his opportunity in the court which rendered the judgment, and it is there he must avail himself of it.24

The question of the validity and effect of judgments from another state has most frequently arisen in cases where such judgments were given against non-residents. Without attempting to discuss all the various and interesting questions which are involved in this subject, it may be said, briefly, to be the accepted doctrine that the judicial process of a state has no ex-territorial force or efficacy; that such process cannot be sent into another state and there served on a party with the effect of legally obliging him to appear; that in such case the service amounts to no more than a constructive service; that the same consequences and no others attach to the service of process by published advertisement; that in neither of these modes can the courts of the state acquire such jurisdiction over the person of the defendant as will authorize them to pronounce a personal judgment against him; that a personal judgment rendered in an action where the only service of process on the defendant was constructive, is not to be regarded as valid or binding in the courts of any other state. But since each state has the right and power to legislate concerning the property which is within its limits, and to provide for its submission to pay the debts. of its owner, it is held that where an action is begun against a nonresident by the attachment of property within the jurisdiction of the court, this will confer jurisdiction, not against the defendant personally, but against the property attached, to the extent of authorizing the court to render a judgment which may be enforced

28 D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165; Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Galpin v. Page, Id. 350; Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108; Arnott v. Webb, 1 Dill. 362, Fed. Cas. No. 562; Harris v. Hardeman, 14 How. 334.

24 Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. 242; Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Ohio, 108; 2 Black, Judgm. §§ 916-921.

against that property. And such a judgment, to that extent, is to be regarded as valid and binding everywhere else.25 While the statute of limitations of the state of the forum may be pleaded in defense, yet it would not be competent for a state to so frame its law of limitations, with respect to judgments from other states, as to effectually nullify them by cutting off all remedy whatever. It is always within the constitutional rights of parties to have a reasonable opportunity to enforce their demands.20 A judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in another state, although the court be not one .of record, is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the constitution, and full faith and credit is to be accorded to it.27 The federal tribunals are not regarded as foreign to each other or to those of the several states. Hence the judgment of a United States court, when sued on in a state court or in another United States court, is entitled to full faith and credit, and so are the judgments of the state courts when offered in the federal tribunals.28 And the same rule applies to the effect of the judgments of the courts in the territories and the District of Columbia.29

INTERSTATE EXTRADITION.

112. It is provided by the federal constitution that "a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.”

25 See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 725; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165; Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 423; Boswell v. Otis, 9 How. 336; Chase v. Chase, 6 Gray, 157.

26 Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290.

27 Stockwell v. Coleman, 10 Ohio St. 33; Carpenter v. Pier, 30 Vt. 81; Glass v. Blackwell, 48 Ark. 50, 2 S. W. 257.

28 Crescent City Live-Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Slaughterhouse Co., 120 U. S. 141, 7 Sup. Ct. 472; U. S. v. Dewey, 6 Biss. 501, Fed. Cas. No. 14,956; Amory v. Amory, 3 Biss. 266, Fed. Cas. No. 334.

29 Johnson v. Dobbins, 5 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 537; 2 Black, Judgm. § 938.