
    THOMAS BATTLE vs. JOHN JONES & AL.
    An ex parte judgment against a person, not a citizen or inhabitant of th© Country, has no extra territorial obligation, and ought not to be respected by the Courts of other Countries, further than it may bo made to appear to be right.
    The cases of Irby v. Wilson, 1 Dev. and Bat. Eq. 568, and Bisseil v. Bozman, 2 Ire. Eq. 154, cited and approved.
    Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Onslow County, at the Spring Term 1550.
    On the 10th of April 1837, the plaintiff gave to the defendant, Franck, his promissory note for ÍS5000, payable January 1st, 1839, in part of a debt he then owed him ; and on the 13th of February 1838, Franck endorsed it to the defendant, John Tones. Battle and Franck then resided in Henry County, Alabama, where the transactions occurred, and Jones in Onslow County, in this State. In June 1839, and January 1840, Battle made payments ota the note, which together amounted to $3469 ; and on the 23rd of December 1840, Jones sued out an original attachment in Onslow County for the balance due on the note, and summoned the defendant, John A. Averitt, as garnishee, who was the general agent of the plaintiff in this State, and in his garnishment confessed that he had in his hands cash and effects of Battle to the value of $ 1158 67 ; and such proceedings were had therein, that in August 1841. judgment was recovered against Battle for $1732 36 for principal money, and $165 47 damages for interest,and also judgment against the garnishee for the sum confessed by him, which he, Averitt, paid.
    
      Previous to the year 1837, Franck was indebted to John Jones in two bonds, which together amounted to about $2800, which the latter deposited for collection with George Jones, also of Henry County aforesaid, and took his receipt therefor ; and he, George Jones, received from Franck, in part payment thereof, the bonds of other persons residing in that part of the Country to the amount of about $200, and then George Jones died. In February 1838, John Jones went to Alabama, for the purpose of getting the business settled with Franck and the administrator of George Jones; and then Franck, wishing to raise money and also to have again the use of the bonds be had transferred to George Jones, as aforesaid, proposed to John Jones to transfer to him the above mentioned note of Battle for $5000, and take in part for the same the receipt given for his bonds by George Jones, and the residue in money ; and it was so agreed, after consulting the administrator of George Jones, who said he -would return to Franck the bonds the latter had passed in payment, and surrender his, Franck’s, bonds, on which a balance was still due. Thereupon Franck endorsed to John Jones, Battle’s said note, and John Jones assigned to Franck the said receipt, which George Jones had given him' and returned to North Carolina.
    In June 1840, an original attachment was sued out in Henry County aforesaid, in the name of Franck, against the estate of John Jones for $1937, as due to Franck from Jones as guarantor and assignor of the .said receipt; which was served — the time notappearing — in the hands of Battle as garnishee, who at Autumn term 1841, made his garnishment, “that he was indebted to the defendant John Jones in the sum of @1082 10 as a balance on a. note for @5000, payable to the plaintiff, Franck, and by ¡him transferred to said Jones, on which said Jones had . sued said garnishee by attachment in North Carolina.’* At the same term a sui£ of enquiry was executed and the damages assessed at $2366, and judgment given therefor, and also judgment against the garnishee condemning the said sum of $1082 10 to the use of the plaintiff.
    In April 1848, this bill was filed in Onslow against John Jones, Franck, and Averitt, and it states that the plaintiff, Battle, had no due notice of the suit by attachment of Jones against him, and that he paid to Franck the sum of $1082 10, so condemned in his hands as garnishee, on account of his said debt to John Jones, and in part of' Franck’s recovery against said Jones ; and that Jones and Averitt had notice of such payment, and that, notwithstanding, Jones procured Averitt to pay to Jones the said sum, being part of the sum of $1158 67 so condemned in the hands of Averitt to the use of Jones. The bill further states, that in fact, the note for $5000, assigned by Franck to Jones, did not belong entirely to Jones, but that he took it upon trust in part for Franck, and to a greater amount than the said sum of $1082 10; and it insists that it is unjust that the plaintiff should thus be compelled to pay the debt twice, to the extent of $1082 10, and prays that the then defendants, or some, or one of them, may be decreed to pay the plaintiff the said sum with interest thereon from the time he paid the same to Franck.
    The answer of Franck disclaims and that of Jones de* nies, that he, Franck, had any interest in the note for $5000 after the assignment to Jones, or now has any in thejudgmentthereon. Franck also denies, that the plaintiff paid him the sum confessed in his garnishment, viz : $1082 10, or any part of it; and he says, lhat the attachment was taken out for the benefit of the plaintiff, and prosecuted by him, in order, if possible, to stop that sum in his own hands towards indemnifying him, Battle, • against his liabilities as the surety of Franck ; and that he, Franck, is not entitled to, or liable for, anything in the premises, as he became insolvent in 1840, and was duly discharged as a bankrupt on the 2nd of May 1843.
    The answer of Averitt denies any collusion with Jones, and states that he gave the plaintiff advice of the attach* ment soon after it was served in his hands, and received instructions from the plaintiff to employ counsel to defend it, upon the ground of the attachment of the debt in Alabama ; so as, if possible, not to allow judgment to be taken against him here, while he might be liable as garnishee there; and that, accordingly, this defendant spoke to counsel, who advised him that no plea could be put in, unless the then defendant, Battle, would replevy by giving bail' — which he did not do. This defendant annexes to his answer a letter from Battle to himself under date, April 5th, 1841, containing those instructions.
    The answer of Jones states, that the whole sum recovered in his attachment against the plaintiff was justly due and belonged exclusively to himself, and was recovered without any collusion with Averitt. This defendant further states, that he had no information from Battle, or suspicion, that the attachment had been taken out against him in Alabama, until the judgment had been rendered therein ; and he denies positively that he owed Franck or was liable to him for anything upon the demand for which the attachment was brought, or any other. He states, that, in fact, very soon after he transferred to Franck the said receipt of George Jones, the administrator of said George settled with and fully satisfied him, Franck, therefor, by returning to him the bonds Franck had before transferred to George Jones, and by cancelling or surrendering to Franck his bond, so as to extinguish the balance due thereon ; and the said administrator w*as a young man, inexperienced in business, and a nephew and under the influence of Franck, and omitted to take up the said receipt when he made such transfer and surrender. He further states, that, if such had not been the case, Franck would not have had any claim against this defendant on the receipt and his endorsement or guaranty ■^hereof; because the estate of George Jones was ample to make good the said demand to Franck and was immediately in his vicinity ; and, moreover, because, at the time of the transfer, he, Franck, was himself indebted to the estate of George Jones in a larger amount and cont inued so indebted up to the time of his bankruptcy aforesaid.— He further states, that he isjinformed and believes, that Battle became involved as the surety of Franck for large sums, which he was compelled to pay; and that upon ascertaining the insolvency of Franck, prior to suing out the attachment in Alabama, he, Battle, and Franck devised the plan of bringing that attachment in the name of Franck, but really for the benefit of Battle, with the view of effecting a recovery of a sum from this defendant, without notice to him of the suit, of which no part was due, as was well known to both of them ; and he denies his belief that the plaintiff ever paid to Franck or any other person any part of the sum condemned in his hands in that suit.
    A transcript of the proceedings in the matter of Franck’s bankruptcy is filed ; and the judgment against Jones does not appear in the inventory of his effects; while in the schedule of his creditors appears the estate of George Jones, deceased, for the sum of $1500 on judgments.
    The other material evidence is that of the administrator of George Jones, and of the attorney, who instituted and conducted the suit in Alabama, They support the answer of the defendant Jones; the former stating, that in 1838 he satisfied to Franck the demand on his intestate’s said receipt, and in the manner set forth in the answer ; and also, that, if any thing had remained due thereon, the estate was sufficient to discharge the whole thereof, and that in fact Franck owed the intestate $ 1500, and never paid any part thereof and also owed the witness about $1600 otherwise. The attorney likewise deposes, that he brought the suit at the instance of Battle, the garnishee, and prosecuted it under his direction and for his benefit, for the reasons stated in the answer; and that it was understood between the witness, Franck, and Battle, that Battle was not to pay any part of the condemnation money, but was to have the judgment as partial indemnity for what he was bound to pay as surety for Franck.
    No counsel for the plaintiff.
    
      J. II. Bryan, for the defendants.
   Ruffin, C. J.

Perhaps no case could present in a stronger light, than the present case does, the propriety of the rule laid down in Irby v. Wilson, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 568, that an ex parle judgment against a person, not a citizen or inhabitant of the Country, has no extra territorial obligation, and ought not to be respected by the Courts of other Countries, further than it may be made to appear to be right. But resort need not be had to that legal principle, in opposition to the claim set up in the present bill; since, however regular the proceedings were and however conclusive the judgment might be in a Court of law, the plaintiff, in this judgment in Alabama, or the garnishee, most clearly cannot claim benefit from it in a Court of equity, when it so plainly appears to be against conscience, for a demand wholly unfounded, and obtained by surprise, that is, without defence or opportunity of defence, as far as is seen. In this point of view, the circumstance, that the judgment was rendered in a sister State, becomes immaterial; for, if it had been a judgment of a Court in this State, obtained under such circumstances against an inhabitant of Alabama, our Court of equity, upon its own principles, would undoubtedly restrain the. plaintiff from making any use of it, and much more, refuse to aid him in any manner to enforce it. Bissell v. Bozman, 2 Ire. Eq. 154. Cranstown v. Johnston, 3 Ves. 170, 5 Ves. 277. The judgment in this State in favor of Jones against Battle is not impeached at all. It is said, indeed, in the bill, that the plaintiff had no notice of the pendency of the suit, and also that a part of the debt recovered is in trust for the plaintiff's debtor, Battle. And both of those statements are positively denied ; and the former proved to be false, and the latter not supported by any evidence. It therefore clearly appears, that the whole debt recovered by Jones was truly due to him ; unless, indeed, there is to be an abatement in respect of the sum condemned in the plaintiff’s hands as garnishee, which, he said, he paid to Franck, the plaintiff, in the attachment in Alabama. Now it appears upon the clearest evidence, not in any degree discredited, that the plaintiff has not paid Franck one cent on that account, and that from the beginning it was distinctly understood, that no such payment was to be made ; and that the whole proceeding was a contrivance between those two persons to defeat Jones of his debt, by precluding him from a remedy therefor by attachment of Battle’s estate in North Carolina. The plaintiff therefore cannot claim upon the idea, that he has the merit of having paid a debt for Jones by compulsion of law ; since he has made no such payment. The cause then is brought down to the merits of the demand of Franck against Jones, for which judgment was rendered. Now, as to that, the proof is plain, that there are none whatever ; for the person primarily liable, George Jones, left assets to discharge the debt, and accessible to Franck, and, moreover, it had actually been satisfied by the administrator of George Jones, and Franck was still indebted to the estate about $1500. There could not, therefore, be a more unconscientious attempt to set up an unjust demand ; and the bill must be dismissed, with costs to the defendants Jones and Averitt.

Per Curiam.

Decree accordingly.  