« 이전계속 »
of blood :
above all reasonable exception. (United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. 469,
[2.] The Congress shall have power to declare the What is the punishment of reason, but no attainder of treason on the shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except inunt: durinthe life of the person attainted.
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 i 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.
" CON RUPTION OF Blood."--By corruption of blood all inheritable Define qualities are destroyed; so that an attainted person can neither corruption inherit lands por other hereditaments from his ancestors, nor retain ihose 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. 27, p. 207; Sergeant's Const. ch. 30 [ch. 32.); Story's Const. § 1301.
ARTICLE IV. Sec. I.–Full fisith and credit shall be given in each what credit State to the public acts, records, anil judicial proceed given to ings of every other State. And the Congress may-&c: by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such 462-467. acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and who may
ihe 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,
are the registration of deeds or the civil law records Records ? of tiles, as in Louisiana, the registration of wills, public documents, archives, legislative journals; and, in fact, all acts, legis. lative, executive, judicial, and ministerial, which constitute the
McGrew v. Watrous, 16 Tex. 509, 512; White v. Burnley, 20 How. 230; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS are the proceedings and judgments
the effect thereof.
public records of a state.
judicial which appertain to courts of record.
3110, note 85.
What is the There the jurisdiction has attached. the judgment is conclusive rule where for all purposes, and is not open to any inquiry upon the merits. jurisdiction
(Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Massachusetts. 402; United States Bauk v. tached? Merchants' Bank, 7 Gill, 430.) Christmas r. 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 “ nó 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 liad been brought therein." (Mississippi Code, 400.) This act was unconstitutional. Christmas 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. What is the A judgment of a State court has the same credit, validity, and effect of a offect in every other court within the United States, which it had in judgment? the State where it was rendered. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 W..
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 reddered. 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 bas been denied as to fraud between parties and privies. Christmas v. Rus. sel, 5 Wall. 505–508. But not lo litigate the merits of the judg. ment. 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 jurisdiztion 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. rol. 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," 462–467. it was prima fucie 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. Bos. well's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 350; Oakley v. Aspin wall, 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.
If a court of any State should render judgment against a man what is the not within the State, nor bound by its laws, rior 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
467. 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. Webster 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 judg. ment 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 Supreine Court will be held to be constructive service, provided the defendant wag served with original process in the lower court, and appeared and
466, 467. took defense. Nations F. 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 whicü could be entorced in the sister State from which it came. (Whiting'v. The
Bank, 13 Pet. 6; Ordinary v. McClure, 1 Bailey, 7.) Patrick v. How mar
Owens, 17 Tex. 278. Judgments of foreign countries may be judgments of proved:-1. By an exemplitication under the great seal; ?. By a country be copy proved to be correct; 3. By the certificate of an officer author. proved? ized by law, which certificate must, of itself, be properly authenti.
cated. (Church v. Hubert, 2 Cr. 187.) Phillips v. Lyons, 1 Ter.
394. Define the The “Great Seal” means the seal of the nation, whether the great deal!
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. What is the In a suit upon a judgment obtained in courts other than the limitation
courts of the State, the limitation prescribed by the law of the upon judg.
forum will bar the action, although the period be shorter than that prescribed for judgments of the State where the suit was brouglit. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Story's Conflict of Laws, 352; Robinson v. Peyton, 4 Tex. 278; Pryor v. Moore, 8 Ter. 252; Bacon v. Howard, 20 How. 23. First, that the statute of limitations of Georgia can be pleaded to an action in that Statè, founded upou a judgment rendered in the State of South Carolina ; and, secondis, that in the alministration 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 pri erence on simple contract debts. Mills v. Duryee; McElmople . Cohen, 13 Pet. 330. firmed 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, 1815, 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 it 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 lias been held, under the Texas statute of limitations, that the same rule applies to a judgmert of a sister State as to a judgment of this state. (Clav v. Clay, 13 Ter. 195;
Allison v. Vash, 16 Id. 560 ) Spann v. Crummerford, 20 Tex. 220. Are the Judgments of another State are not prima jacie, 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. (lay, or conclusive!
13 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
note 58. And see Grant v. Bledsoe, 20 Tex. 458; Thomas v. Rob. inson, 3 Wend. 267.
The legislation of Congress amounts to this: that the judgment What does of another State sha.l be record evidence of the demand; and that the legisla
tion amount the defendant, when sued on the judgment, cannot go behind it and
to! controvert the contract or other cause of actioc on which the judg. ment is founded; that it is evidence of an established demand, whichi, standing alone, is conclusive between the parties to it. (Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528.) Norwood v. Cobb, 20 Tex. 594.
They certainly are not foreign judgments; nor are they domestic Are tho judgments in every sense, because they are not the proper founda- judgments
foreign or tion of tinal process, except in the State where they were rendered.
domestic ? Besides, they are open to inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the court and notice to the defendant; but in all other respects they have the same faith and credit as domestic judgments.
Subject to those qualifications, the judgment of a State court is conclusive in the courts of all the other States wherever the same matter is brought in controversy. The established rule is, that so long as the judgment remains in force it is of itself conclusive of the right of the plaintiff to the thing adjudged in his favor, and gives him a right to process, mesne or final, as the case may be, to execute the judgment D'Arcy v. Ketchum et al. 11 Howard, 165; Webster v. Reid, Id. 437; Voorhees v. United States Bank, 10 Peters, 449; Huff v. Hutchingson, 14 Howard, 558; Christmas v. Russel, 5 Wall. 305; Benton v. Bargot, 10 Sergt. & Rawle, 240.
To render a defense, or plea to the judgment of anocher State good, it must go sufficiently far to negative the reasonable intendment which exists, prima facio, in favor of the jurisdiction, and of the regularity of the proceedings. (Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 296; 6 Wend. 447; Holt v. Alloway, 2 Blackford, 108; Welch v. Sykes, 3 Gil. 197; Moreland v. Trenton los. Co. 4 Zabriskie, 222; Latterett v. Cooke, 1 Clarke, 1; Black v. Black, 4 Brad. 174; Bissell v. Wheelock, 11 Cush. 277; Buchanan v. Post, 5 Ind. 264.) 1 Smith's Leading Cases, Part 2, pp. 1026, 1027.
It is now well settled that judgments of one State of the Union on what may be controverted in another, on the ground that the court ground may which pronounced them did not obtain jurisdiction over the parties be conby due service of process or notice. (Reed v. Wright, 2 Iowa, 15; trolled ? 2 Am. Leading Cases, 798, 4th ed.; Price v. Ward, 1 Dutcher, 225 ; Smith v. Smith, 17 IIl. 482 ; Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328; Black v. Black, 4 Brad. 174; Wright v. Boynton. 37 N. H. 9: Judkius v. Union Life Ins. Co. Id. 470; McLaurine v. Monroe, 30 Mo. 462.) 1 Smith's Leading Cases, Part 2, p. 1025. This may be not only proven in opposition to the record, but also against its averments. Id. Baltzell v. Nosler, 1 Clarke, 588; Gleason v. Dodd, 4 Met. 335; Carleton v. Bickford, 13 Gray, 591: Norwood v. Cobb, 15 Tex. 500; S. C. 24 Tex. 551; Brinder v. Dawson, 1 Scammon, 541. But, contra, see Pritchet v. Clark, 5 Harrington, 63 ; Westcott v. Brown, 15 Ind. 83; Rowe v. Hackett, 2 Bosworth