
    Stephen Jacobs versus William Hull.
    Where a citizen of this State was resident in the State of Vermont, during the time that the proceedings in an action against him were commenced and pending in a court of that State having jurisdiction of the subject, he is bound by the judgment rendered in such action, and debt lies on it againit him here,
    
      [* 25] *This was an action of debt upon a judgment recovered in the State of Vermont in February, 1806.
    The defendant pleaded four several pleas in bar. The second plea alleges, that, when the process in Vermont was served on him, and when the judgment was rendered, he was an inhabitant of Newton, in the county of Middlesex, and Commonwealth of Massachu setts, and not an inhabitant of any place in the State of Vermont.
    
    To this plea the plaintiff replies, that, at the time of the service of the said process in Vermont, the defendant was resident in Burlington, in said State of Vermont, and that the said process was served upon him at his own request; and that in every stage of the said process he voluntarily appeared, and expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court there, without taking any exception thereto.
    The defendant demurs generally to the said replication, and the plaintiff joins in demurrer.'
    The other pleas in bar terminated in issues to the country.
    
      Bigelow, for the plaintiff.
    
      Ward, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Issues to the country being joined on all the pleas except the second, we have only to decide on the plaintiff’s replication to that plea, to which the defendant has demurred, and the plaintiff has joined in the demurrer.

The legal merits of this replication have been settled, after full deliberation, in the case of Bissell vs. Briggs.

It is there decided, that, if the Court of another State, which has rendered judgment against a citizen of this State, had jurisdiction over the subject, such judgment bound the citizen ; and he would not be permitted to look into the transaction, in order to show that such judgment ought not to have been rendered.

The replication in this case alleges that Hull, the judgment debtor, was resident within the State of Vermont when the process [*26] commenced, and that he continued so resident * until the judgment; that he had personal notice of the suit, and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. This we think a sufficient answer to the matter contained in the bar; which is substantially nothing more than that Hull was a citizen of Massachusetts, and so not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Replication adjudged good. 
      
       9 Mass. Rep. 462.
     
      
       Vide note to Bissel vs. Briggs, 9 Mass. Rep. 454, 3d ed. — Elliot vs. Piersall, 1 Peters, 328. — Taylor & al. vs. Phelps, 1 Har, & G. 492. — Barney vs. Patterson’s lessee, 6 H. & J. 182. — Cotton vs. Cotton, 4 Rand, 192. — Wright vs Deklyne, 1 Peters’ C. C. 199. — Stark vs. Woodward, 1 Nott & M. 329. — Hopkins vs. Lee, 6 Wh. 109. — Greene vs. Sarmiento, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 17. — 1 Brown R., Appendix, 30. — 1 Peters, 74.— Field vs. Gibbs, 1 Peters’ R. 155.
     