
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1802.
    Hammon, & Hattaway v. Smith.
    To debt upon a judgment recovered in another State, the plea of nul tiel ■ record will be bad upon demurrer. The 1 sec. 4 art. Con. U. S. relates to the authentication of the record as evidence, and has not invested congress with authority to change the character, or enlarge the effect of the judgment; which is still to be regarded as a foreign judgment, and the proper plea, therefore, is nil debet. [1 Brev. Dig. 317, note ; sed vide Hinton v. Townes, 1 Hill, 439, contra.]
    
    
      ' This was an action of debt, brought in Richland district, on a judgment obtained in a county court in North Carolina. Plea nul tiel record, to which the plaintiff demurred. Bay, J., who presided in the district court of Richland, last term, decided against the plaintiff, and overruled the demurrer.
    The case being brought up here, upon exception to the judgment of the district court, it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff, that the plea of nul tiel record, to an action founded on a judgment, recovered in an inferior court in another State, is improper, inasmuch as, if allowed, it would operate to preclude an enquiry into the regularity, legality, and justice, of the recovery ; whereas, such judgments ought to be subject to examination in our courts : and, ■therefore, the plea ought to have been nil debet, and concluded to the country. That such judgments ought to be considered in the light, of foreign judgments ; and allowed in evidence, only as prima facie proof of a debt, controvertible by the defendant, who ought to be permitted to impeach its validity and regularity. Doug. 1, 6, ,1 Dallas, 261.
    
      E contra.
    
    On behalf of the defendant, it was contended, that by the constitution of the United States, qrt. 4, full faith and eredit shall be given in each State, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other State, and congress may prescribe the manner in which such acts, &c,, shall be proved, and the effect thereof: and by an act of congress of May, 1790, 1 vol. Laws U. S. 115, it is directed, that the judicial proceedings in each State, are to be authenticated, proved, aud admitted, by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court, if it has a seal, and certificate of the judge, or presiding magistrate, that the attestation is in due form ; and the act provides that public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have the same credit any where in the United States, as in the State whence they are taken : and, therefore, that the States in union, are not in the.same relation to each other, as England and the colonies subject to Great Britain ; the colonies and dependencies of the crown, being considered, in England, as foreign countries. That the case cited from Dallas, was distinguishable from this case, on two grounds. 1. That was a case on foreign attachment, which is a proceeding in rem, and liable to be perverted to the purposes of fraud. 2. The decision took place in the year 1788, before congress had passed any law prescribing' the manner in which judicial proceedings should be proved, and the effects thereof, pursuant to the constitution of the United States. See 3 Dali. 88, lt)2. 1 Dali. 261. 2 Dali. 271. But congress 1ms now prescribed tine mode of proving all such proceedings, and pronounced what effect they shall have when so proved. The judicial proceedings of any one State, authenticated according to the mode pointed out by the act of congress of 1790, are to have exactly the same validity and effect in every other State in the union, to which they are entitled in the State whence tl>ey were taken ; and, therefore, the argument is reduced to a single point, that is to say, the effect which the authenticated proceedings in the present case would be entitled to have, in the State of North Carolina, if produced in a cause there depending. No doubt, but that in North Carolina, such proceedings are regarded in the light of records, and are conclusive and incontrovertible evidence of the facts they contain ; and cannot be examined into or denied.
   The judges delivered their opinions seriatim :

Bkevarw, J.

The declaration in this case states a recovery in a judicial proceeding in a court of North Carolina. The plea donies the existence of any such proceeding. The demurrer admits the truth of the plea, but denies the right of the party to plead it. The question, then, is as to the propriety of the plea, and whether nil debet is not the proper plea to be pleaded in such case, I think the plea of nul iicl record, is a proper plea to an action of debt, which this is, founded on a judgment recovered in a court of law' in an}' State in the union ; and that the production of an authenticated copy of the record of sueh recovery, under the seal of the court where the original is of record, if such court has a seal, and if not, then such seal is not necessary, aéeording to the act of congress,must be deemed sufficient evidence of such record. The constitution of the United States declares, that full faith and credit shdlp be given in each State, to the judicial- proceedings of every other State ; and that congress may prescribe the manner in which such proceedings shall he proved, and the manner thereof'. Congress, in 1790, passed an act which prescribes the manner in which such proceedings in each State shall- be’ authenticated, proved, or admitted, in any other court of any other State, within the United-States, so as to take effect therein ; and declares that such proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and- credit allowed them in every court within the United States, as they have, by law or usage, in the courts of the State from whence the same are taken. Now, it appears to me, that the constitution and-law, above cited, intended to give the same validity and effect to authenticated5 copies of the judicial proceedings of the courts of the several-United States, out of that State where sueh proceedings are had,, as the original proceedings are éntitled to, in the same court where the same are of record ; and I am unable to perceive any other5 object or purpose the act of congress is calculated to answer, or any other meaning it can have. The act says, “ such proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith- and credit given to them, as in the State from whence they are taken.” This cannot be meant of the original proceedings themselves, for these cannot be procured-from one State to another. The keepers of sueh records would not easily consent to entrust them to be carried away out of tho State, perhaps from New Hampshire to Tennessee, or Georgia f and I think they-cannot be compelled, by any legal process, to attend, with (he records, in the courts of other States, than that wherein they are resident, to furnish evidence in any cause therein depending. Then, unless the construction I give this act of congress, should prevail, it must be idle and vain. But if this should be the true meaning of the act, then the plea of nul liel record is proper in this case ; for debt is a proper action to recover money due by judgment, although a scire facias may be brought, and mil tiel record is a proper plea to an action of debt founded on a judgment. The issue is to be tried by producing the record itself, if it be ft récord of the same court; and if it be a record of another court, by producing an authenticated copy,' duly exemplified, from the court from whence the same is taken. I conceive it to be á clear principle, that the merits of a'judgment cannot be examined into in an original action founded on that judgment'. If this suit had been brought in any other court in' North Carolina, than that wherein the recovery was had,' an exemplification, or certified copy of the record of such recovery, under the seal of the Court wherein the' judgment was obtained, if such court had a seal) and if not a true copy, duly certified, must have been admitted and received as evi« deuce of such record; in the same mannel- as the original would be evidence in the court where it is kept of record ; and in such case the plea of nil debet would be improper, because man action of do:>t, rounded on a record or specialty, the debt cannot be denied' v'itnout denying the instrument on which it is founded. And if such plea, in such case, would be ah ill plea in North Carolina, it must be equally bad here. 2 Burr. 1009. 2 Bl. Com. 404. 1 Esp. Dig. 236. 2 Burr. 1034. Doug. 554. 2 Dallas, 302, 233, 270. 4 T. R. 493: Bull. N. P. 245. 2 Show. 232. 1 Lofft’s Gilb. 332. Cro. Jac. 227.

The decisions in England, in regard to foreign judgments, cari» not, in my judgment, apply to this case. Foreign judgments aré not there considered as records, to which implicit faith is due they are considered only as prima facie evidence of a debt, and' may be examined into. They are regarded'in the light of simple' contracts, and either debt or assumpsit may be maintained on them. 2 Vern. 541. 13 Vin. Ab. 414. Doug. 1. 1 Dall. 261. But surely, this is not the footing on which the solemn judgments, and judicial proceedings of the courts of law of the several States,united- under the same general government, and constituting the' nation, are- placed in relation to each other State. It seems to me that all the mischiefs the constitution and law of the United States were designed to avoid, must inevitably take place, should this bo the case. What other effect can they produce, than must have taken place, if they had never passed, unless they are to have the meaning and effect I contend for ?

I am-, therefore, of opinion, that the demurrer was, in this case, properly overruled in the district court, and that judgment should be given for the defendant.

Johnson, J.

In this caso I am of opinion, that mil tiel record, is not the proper plea to an action of debt, on a judgment, in ano. ther State. Doug. 1. Upon the usual replication, habetur tale. recordum, the original record ought .to be inspected; but this is-impossible. An exemplification of our own judgments is not evi. dence in such cases, and therefore an exemplification of the judgment of a sister State, certainly ought not to be. The plaintiffs would have all the benefit intended to be secured by the constitution, by giving an exemplification in evidence, under the plea of nil debet. If the court should go the extent contended for by the defendant, the next step would be to decide that a sci.fa. ot a judgment in a sister State, might be maintained in this State.

Trezevant, J.

1 concur with my brother Johnson, in the opinion he has given, and for the reasons stated by him.

Grimke, J.

I am of opinion, that the plea of nul tiel record is improper in an action of debt founded on such an exemplification as was produced in this case. I found my opinion on the authority of the case of Walker v. Witter, Doug. 4. What is meant by a court of record in a case of this kind, and where the plea of nul tiel record is pleaded in this State, is such a court as lies within the authority and jurisdiction of the judges here; who, upon a plea of nul tiel record, can compel the keeper of such record to bring it up to them for inspection. But as to a judgment from the State of North Carolina, they cannot command the officer thereof to bring it. up. The 1 sec. of the 4 art. of the constitution of the' United States, declaring that full faith shall be given to the records of évery other State, does not apply in this motion. This article only' declares, that it shall be received with full faith and credit; but it does not say that it shall be the foundation of the suit: evidently meaning to draw a distinction between the effect it would have, as evidence of such a debt, and the recovery thereof, and that of its-being full and unequivocal proof of the debt. This, indeed, would be putting a judgment, over the keeper of which we «an have jio Control, on the same footing with a judgment of our courts,

Waties, J., concurred with Geimke, J.

Judgment reversed.  