
    Isaiah Woodward versus John B. Tremere et al.
    
    A judgment recovered in another of the United States against a cititen of Massa» - chusetts, who at the commencement and during the pendency of the action woo not within such State, and never was served with process, nor ever appeared to the action, though he had knowledge of its being commenced, is not binding upon him in Massachusetts.
    Debt on a judgment of a Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions in North Carolina.
    The defendants’ second plea was, that during the pendency of the original action and at the time when the judgment was rendered, they were inhabitants of and residents in Massachusetts, and not within the jurisdiction of the court in North Carolina. The third plea was, that no writ or process, upon which the judgment might have been founded, was ever served upon either of the defendants, and that they did not appear and plead to such supposed writ or other process. In the fourth plea the averments of the second and third were united.
    The replication to these three pleas alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff purchased a writ out of the court in North Carolina, and by virtue thereof the sheriff attached a schooner, the property of the defendants, then lying in North Carolina; that the writ was entered at the May term 1822, of the court, and in pursuance of an order of the court, notice of the process and attachment was published in a newspaper ; that on the 13th of July 1822, one Demille was summoned as garnishee of the defendants, and at the August term he disclosed that he had in his hands a sum of money belonging to the defendants, and the court thereupon ordered the same to be paid over to the plaintiff; that on the 16th of the same July, Cushing & Bonner, merchants in North Carolina, were summoned as garnishees of the defendants, and at the August term they appeared and filed their garnishment; that at the time of the service of the process upon them as garnishees, and until the rendition of the judgment, they were the duly authorized agents of the defendants in relation to the suit; that the defendants had actual and seasonable notice o 1 the writ, attachment and other proceedings, and full opportunity to appear and defend against the action, and that they did employ counsel practising in the Court of Pleas, &c. to aid, advise and direct them in regard to the action.
    
      March 28th
    
    
      June 26th.
    
    To this replication the defendants demurred specially, assigning as one cause, that it is argumentative, inasmuch as it does not aver that they were residents or inhabitants within the jurisdiction of the Court of Pleas &c. at the commencement or during the pendency of the suit, nor that they were duly served with process, nor that they ever appeared or pleaded,the negative of which facts is directly averred in the pleas, but it avers that the defendants had notice in season to appear and defend the suit, which is no sufficient, direct and positive answer to the averments in the pleas.
    
      Curtis argued in support of the demurrer,
    and referred to several of the cases cited in Hall v. Williams et al., ante p. 232.
    
      Cooke, contra,
    
    relied upon the argument made for the plaintiff in that case.
   Per Curiam.

The general principle determined in Hall v. Williams et al. applies to the case now before us. It is true the plaintiff has averred that the defendants had notice of the pendency of the original suit, but there was no service of process upon them, and no appearance on their behalf.

Replication adjudged bad. 
      
       See this decision, ante, 232, and cases cited in the notes to it.
     