
    *John Lanning against William Shute.
    in DEBT.
    Pleading ter^ofndér^in demurrer, 
    
    badpleato declaration in Ivfbrkf 
    
    THE declaration sets out a judgment in the Supreme Court of the state of New- York, in an action of slander, for $1986.69 ; that it still remains in force, not satisfied or vacated; whereby an action accrued, &c. The defendant pleaded, first, nul tiel record; secondly, nil debet, and annexed to it a notice of various particulars, which he should prove under it.
    Upon the first plea, issue was joined. To the second, the plaintiff filed a demurrer. The defendant joined in demurrer, and the case was noticed for argument.
    
      Chetwood,
    
    moved to amend the declaration, by altering the day on which the judgment in New-York was laid. Scudder objected that it was too late; but the court directed the amendment to be made, on payment of proper costs.
    
      Chetwood, for plaintiff.
    The demurrer brings up the question, as to the effect of a judgment in another state, under the constitution of the United States. Argument is not necessary ; the cases need only be cited. 2 Dall. 302. Brown’s Rep. Appendix 30. 7 Cra. 481. 3 Wheat. 234.
    
      Scudder, in answer.
    The courts of other states are foreign ; their judgments foreign ; and must be pleaded as facts. The constitution and laws of congress, were only designed to overcome the necessity of proving them as foreign judgments, by witnesses, and to permit them to be proved by certificate. Gilb. Ev. 19. The law of congress of 26th May, 1790, directs the statutes of the several states, to be authenticated, by their respective seals; and then gives them full faith, &c. in the very words respecting judgments ; yet still, thus authenticated, the statutes remain foreign, and of no validity. The words full faith and credit, have been misapprehended, and are sometimes misquoted, and read, effect, (2 Dall. 302) a meaning they were never designed to have. Under the doctrine contended for, if a judgment were obtained under the penal laws of New- York, which are directly in opposition to our own, this court might be compelled to carry it into effect; and even help to punish a citizen of New-Jersey, for resisting the process of New- York, on our docks, within our *own jurisdiction. See laws of New-York and New-Jersey. Pat. 348. 1 Caines 460. Peters 74.
    
      Ewing declined the general argument,
    it having been, heretofore, sufficiently discussed; 1 Mass. 401, but insisted ; that the following propositions, shewed, that judgment on the demurrer must be for defendant, without touching the general question. 1. Every judgment of another state, is not conclusive evidence of a debt. Some are; some are not. See Uolkar case, and Pen. 399. 2. If the judgment be only prima facie evidence of the debt, nil debet is a good plea. If it is conclusive, then nul tiel record, is the right plea. 3. Every pleading is to be taken most strongly against him who makes it. 5 Bac. 322. 4. There is nothing in the declaration to shew that this is a conclusive judgment; that there was process, service, trial, verdict, &c. The court must, therefore, presume that it is prima facie evidence of debt only, and therefore debet is a good plea. Whether such conclusive judgment will be produced at the trial, non constat. In the case in Peters 74, nil debet, was pleaded; a conclusive judgment was given in evidence, and the court so charged the jury. So 7 Cra. 484; 1 Mass. 401.
    
      Ghetwood.
    
    The cases, where judgments are hot con- ■ sidered conclusive, are in rem: this is slander, and if by default, still conclusive. Besides, defendant does shew by his plea and notice, that there was process and trial, and the record, which is referred to, and made part of the declaration, also shews the same.
    
      
      
        Condit vs. Neighbor, 7 Hal. 320. See Williamson vs. Updike, 2 Gr. 270, But not after judgment. Gulick vs. Loder, 2 Gr. 572, 3 Gr. 416.
      
    
    
      
      
         Vanuxem vs. Hazelhursts, 1 South. 192, note (a). Olden vs. Hallet, ante 466. Lanning vs. Shute, ante 553. Field vs. Gibbs, 1 Pet. C. C.155. See Moulin vs. Trenton Ins. Co., 4 Zab. 222. Mackay ads. Gordon, 5 Vr. 286. Robert vs. Hodges. 1 C. E. Gr. 300. Davis vs. Headley, 7 C. E. Gr. 116.
      
    
   Kirkpatrick C. J.

This is an action of debt, upon a judgment entered in the Supreme Court of the state of New- York

The defendant pleads, first, nul tiel record, upon which issue is joined; and secondly, nil debel, giving notice of the particulars to be given in evidence upon the trial; which particulars, go to shew that the judgment was obtained, partly by the fraud of the plaintiff, and partly by the oppression and injustice of the court, and not upon the truth and justice of the case. And to this last plea there is a demurrer, and a joinder in demurrer.

The question presented by these pleadings, has been considered and settled in this court, some terms ago, in the case of Olden v. Hallet; and since that time, in the same way, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Hampton v. *M’ Connel. This last is conclusive, for being a constitutional question, it belongs to that court to settle the law, and having settled it, we are bound by the decision; we have no further discretion upon it. The plea, therefore, must be overruled, and there must be judgment for the plaintiff.

Southard J.

I concur in the opinion of the court, but I do it under the irresistible weight of authority alone. My judgment is not satisfied.

Judgment for plaintiff.  