Pennington v. Gibson. 16 H. said: "Had the decree been perfected, I would have given effect to it as to a judgment at law. The one may be the consideration for an assumpsit equally with the other. But the law implies a promise to pay a definite, not an indefinite sum." [ * * The case of Henly v. Soper, 8 Barn. & Cress. 16; of Dubois v. Dubois, 6 Cowen, 496, and of McKim v. Odom, 3 Fairfield, 94, are all expressly to the point, that the action of debt may be maintained equally upon a decree in chancery as upon a judgment at law. But if this question had been left in doubt by other tribunals, it must be regarded as settled for itself by this court, in the explicit language of its decision in the case of Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. 109, where it is declared as a general rule, " that a fact which has been directly tried and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be contested again between the same parties, in the same or in any other court. Hence, a verdict and judgment of a court of record, or a decree in chancery, although not binding on strangers, puts an end to 78] all further controversy concerning the points decided between the parties to such suit. In this there is, and ought to be no difference between a verdict and judgment in a court at law and a decree of a court of equity. They both stand upon the same footing, and may be offered in evidence under the same limitations; and it would be difficult to assign a reason why it should be otherwise. The rule has found its way into every system of jurisprudence, not only from its obvious fitness and propriety, but because, without it, an end could never be put to litigation. It is, therefore, not confined in England or in this country to judgments of the same court, or to the decisions of courts of concurrent jurisdiction; but extends to matters litigated before competent tribunals in foreign countries." The case of Dubois v. Dubois, 6 Cowen, was an action of debt upon a decree for a specific sum, by a surrogate of one of the counties of the State of New York. One of the objections in that case was, that the action of debt could not be maintained; and another, that no jurisdiction was shown by the declaration. The supreme court, in its opinion, say: "The principal question raised is, whether debt will lie. The general rule is, that this form of action is proper for any debt of record, or by specialty, or for any sum certain. It has been decided that debt lies upon a decree for the payment of money made by a court of chancery in another State, and no doubt the action will lie upon such a decree in our domestic courts of equity. The decree of the surrogate, unappealed from, is conclusive, and determines forever the rights of the parties. It may be enforced by imprisonment, and is certainly evidence of a debt due; whether the surrogate's court be a court of record need not be decided. It has often been said, that Pennington v. Gibson. 16 H. a court of chancery is not a court of record. It is sufficient that a decree in either court, unappealed from, is final-debt will lie." In opposition to the doctrine we have laid down, the case of Carpenter v. Thornton, from 3 Barn. & Ald. 52, has been cited, to show that the action of debt will not lie upon a decree of a court of equity. But with respect to the case of Carpenter v. Thornton, it must be remarked that Lord Tenterden, who decided that case, has, in the subsequent case of Henly v. Soper, 8 Barn. & Cress. 20, explicitly denied that the former case can be correctly understood as ruling any such doctrine or principle as that for which it has been here adduced. In Henly v. Soper, his lordship says of Carpenter v. Thornton: "I think it does. not establish the broad principle for which it is cited. It appears by the report that I then expressed myself with much caution, and I do not find that I ever said that a decree of a court of equity fixing the balance due on a partnership account could not be enforced in a court of law *unless the items of the account could be [* 79 ] sued for. My judgment proceeded on the particular circumstances of that case; the bill was for the specific performance of an agreement, which is a matter entirely of equitable jurisdiction. But it is a general rule that if a partnership account be settled, and a balance struck by due authority, that balance may be recovered in an action at law." In support of the objection that the action in this case, founded on a decree in chancery could not be maintained, the counsel for the plaintiff in error has cited the case of Hugh v. Higgs and wife, reported in 8 Wheat. 697. This is a short case, presenting no precise statement of the facts involved in it, and as far as the facts are disclosed by the report, they are given in a somewhat confused and ambiguous form. It is true that the objection to the action, as founded on a decree in chancery, is said by the court to have been urged in its broadest extent. But if we look to the decision of this court, and the reasoning upon which that decision is rested, we find the objection to the judgment of the circuit court, or rather the principle of that objection, narrowed and brought considerably within the extent of the objection itself. For this court say that the judg ment of the circuit court must be reversed for error in the opinion, which declares that the action is maintainable on the decretal order of the court of chancery. It might very well be error to allow the action of debt upon a decretal order of the chancery, and yet perfectly regular to sustain such an action upon the final decree. The former is subject to revision and modification, the latter is conclusive upon the rights of the parties. There is yet another ground on which this case of Hugh v. Higgs and wife, so imperfectly stated, might form an exception to the rule which authorizes actions of debt upon de Pennington v. Gibson. 16 H. crees in equity. In the case last mentioned, the action at law was brought and the judgment rendered within the regular limits of the equity jurisdiction of the court, and to the full extent of which limits the court of equity had the power to enforce its decrees. Under these circumstances, it might well be ruled that a party having the right to avail himself directly of the power and process of the court, should not capriciously relinquish that right, and harass his adversary by a new and useless litigation. An exception like this is perfectly consistent with the rule, that where the decree of the court of equity cannot be enforced by its own process, and within the regular bounds of its jurisdiction, such decree, when regular and final, and when especially it ascertains and declares the simple pecuniary responsibility of a party, may, and for the purposes of justice must, be the foundation of an action at law against that party whose [80] responsibility has been thus ascertained. Upon this principle it is that the courts of law in England, whilst they have been inclined to restrict the plaintiff in the proper process of the court of equity for the purpose of enforcing the decrees of the court within the bounds of its jurisdiction, have undeviatingly maintained the right of action upon decrees pronounced by the colonial courts. The process of the colonial courts could not run into the mother country, but this fact did not impair the rights settled by the decrees of those courts or render them less binding or final as between the parties. On the contrary, it is assigned as the special reason why the courts of law should take cognizance of such causes, without which an entire failure of justice would ensue. For this rule of decision in the English courts, the cases of Sadler v. Robins, and of Henly v. Soper, may again be recurred to; and, for its adoption by courts in our own country, may be cited Post v. Neafie, 3 Caines, 22, and Dubois v. Dubois, and McKim v. Odom, already mentioned. Having disposed of the general proposition in the first assignment of causes of demurrer by the plaintiff in error, we will next inquire into the force of the condition or modification he has annexed to it, in the alleged necessity for an express averment in pleading of the efficacy or legal obligation of the decree within the territorial jurisdiction of the court by whom the decree has been pronounced. Of the binding obligation, and conclusiveness of decrees in equity where the parties and the subject-matter of such decrees are within the regular cognizance of the court pronouncing them, and of their equality in dignity and authority with judgments at law, we have already spoken. It remains for us only to consider what may be legally intended or concluded from the pleadings in this cause as to Pennington v. Gibson. 16 H. the territorial extent of jurisdiction in the court whose decree is made the foundation of this action. The declaration avers: "That at a general term of the supreme court in equity for the State of New York, one of the United States of America, held at the village of Cooperstown in the State of New York, on the 1st Monday in November, in the year 1848, it was or dered, adjudged, and decreed, &c., and further, that on the 25th of November, 1848, the complainant's costs were taxed, &c., as by the said decree duly signed and enrolled at a special term of the said supreme court, &c., and now remaining in the office, &c., reference being thereto had, will appear." It is undeniably true in pleading, that where a suit is instituted in a court of limited and special jurisdiction, it is indispensable to aver that the cause of action arose within such restricted jurisdiction; but it is equally true, with regard to *superior [ *81 ] courts, or courts of general jurisdiction, that every pre sumption is in favor of their right to hold pleas, and that, if an exception to their power or jurisdiction is designed, it must be averred, and shown as matter of defence. Such is the general rule as laid down by Chitty, vol. 1, p. 442. So too in the case of Shumway v. Stillman, in 4 Cowen, 296. The supreme court of New York, speaking with reference to a judgment rendered in another State, says: "Every presumption is in favor of the judgment. The record is primâ facie evidence of it, and will be held conclusive until clearly and explicitly disproved." And in further affirmation of the doctrine here laid down, we hold that the courts of the United States can and should take notice of the laws and judicial decisions of the several States of this Union, and that with respect to these, nothing is required to be specially averred in pleading which would not be so required by the tribunals of those States respectively. In the case before us, the declaration avers that the decree on which the action is founded was a decree of the supreme court in equity of the State of New York-of a court whose jurisdiction in equity was supreme, not over a section of the State; but that it was the supreme court as to subjects of equity of the State, that is, of the entire State; and its decrees being ranked, in our opinion, as equal in dignity and obligation with judgments at law, its decree in the case before us was of equal efficacy with any such judgment throughout its territorial jurisdiction, or, in other words, throughout the extent of the State. The second and third causes of demurrer assigned by the plaintiff in error, are essentially comprised in the first assignment, and are mere subdivisions of that assignment; and in disposing therefore of Fourniquet v. Perkins. 16 H. the first, the second and third causes of demurrer are in effect necessatily passed upon. We are of the opinion that the demurrer of the plaintiff in error was properly overruled, and that the judgment of the circuit court be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs. EDWARD P. FOURNIQUET and Wife, and MARTIN W. EWING and Wife, Appellants, v. JOHN PERKINS. 16 H. 82. When a cause comes on for a hearing, on exceptions to a master's report, and for directions for a final decree, it is not irregular for the judge to reverse his decision, under which the reference was made, and dismiss the bill, if he thinks it ought to be dismissed. He is not obliged to enter a final decree which he believes erroneous. APPEAL from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. Henderson, for the appellant. Benjamin and Johnson, contrà. *TANEY, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. [ * 85 ] This case came before the court some years ago, on an appeal from an interlocutory order of the circuit court, which stated that the appellants were entitled to recover certain claims set out in their bill, and directed an account to be taken by the master. It is reported 6 How. 206. The appeal was dismissed, upon the ground that an appeal would not lie from an interlocutory order, and the case was remanded to the court below, with directions to proceed to a final decree. Upon receiving this mandate, the circuit court proceeded to take the account upon the principles stated in its interlocutory order; and when the report of the master came in, exceptions were taken to it on both sides. At the argument of these exceptions, it appears that the court reconsidered the opinion it had expressed on the merits in the interlocutory order; and believing that opinion to be incorrect, dismissed the complainants' bill. The case now before us is an appeal from that decree. The decree is undoubtedly right. For it conforms to the opinions expressed by this court in relation to the matters now in controversy in the case between Fourniquet and wife and the present appellee, reported 7 How. 160; and again in the case between these appellants and Perkins the appellee, in the case reported in 14 How. 313. It is unnecessary to state here the facts in the present case, or the matters |