
    Hunt vs. Lyle & Hale.
    A decree obtained in a chancery court in the State of Virginia is conclusive, and cannot be enquired into, when attempted to be enforced in this State.
    Where champerty is charged in prosecuting a suit at law, application ought to be made during its pendency, to have the suit dismissed. It is too late after judgment to file a bill for champerty, alleged to have taken place in prosecuting a suit at Jaw.
    The bill charges that a decree was obtained by Lyle against complainant in the chancery court at Lynchburg, Virginia, in 1828, in a cause that had been there pending for years before, against complainant Hunt and George Mason. Charges that complainant Hunt had purchased a tract of land from Mason, in 1816, not knowing that any lien existed to encumber it, which was paid for by complainant, when Lyle filed his bill, to enforce a lien against the land, or part of it, for unpaid purchase money, (Mason having purchased from Lyle). Charges that complainant answered, and the matter was litigated, a decree had, and the land sold and purchased in by Lyle for one hundred dollars. That this not satisfying the claim of Lyle, a decree over was had against complainant Hunt, after he had removed from Virginia to Tennessee, that the record of the decree was sent here, and a recovery therein had at law, which judgment was enjoined by this bill. The bill also .charges, that Hale was interested in the judgment at law, and was to receive a part of the proceeds of the judgment for his services which was champertous.
    The defendants demurred to it, and the demurrer was sustained.
    
      W. Stoddert and M. Brown, for defendants.
    The decree rendered in the State of Virginia was conclusive, and could not be reinvestigated here. Mills vs. Duryee, 7 Cranch. Rep. 487: Hampton vs. M’Connel, 3 Wheat. Rep.: 3 Dane’s Ab. 527: 2 Yerg. Rep. 484.
   CatroN, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the constitution of the United States, and the act of Congress, the same force and effect must be given by the courts of this State, to the decree of the chancery court in Virginia, that it had in that State. The complainant informs us in the bill, that the decree there was final and conclusive, not subject to be revised or reviewed; and hence he applied to a court of chancery for relief *n ®late- The decree cannot have less force here than in Virginia, or be reviewed here; for this is in fact nothing more than a bill of review, grounded on the Virginia record. Congress having declared the force and effect of judgments and decrees, in sister states, to be the same as in the states where they were rendered, it is our duty to execute this decree rendered in Virginia, just as there it would have been executed, had complainant Hunt .continued to reside within the jurisdiction of the chancery court at Lynchburgh.

The Charge of champerty made against Hale, we think, • is no reason for applying to a court of chancery to enjoin the judgment at law. If there was champerty in prosecuting the suit at law, application ought to have been made to that court, the fact ascertained, and the suit dis^ missed. This would not have been a forfeiture of the' claim of Lyle: he might have brought another suit.

1 There is no ground on which this bill can be sustained:. The decree of the chancellor will be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.  