Case ID: ohio_10/html/100, 101-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Grimke, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Augustus A. Bennett, for the use of another, v. Daniel S. Morley and Ebenezer Griffith.
    Under the plea of nul tiel record in an action of debt on a judgment from a sister state against two defendants, both of whom appear by the record to have been served with process, evidence is not admissible to show that one of the defendants was not in fact served.
    Whether such evidence be admissible under a different state of pleading, qucere.
    
    This is an action of debt from the county of Trumbull.
    The suit is brought upon a judgment of the court of common pleas of the county of Genesee, in the State of New York.
    The declaration is in the common form.
    Daniel S. Morley, the only defendant served with process here, pleads nul tiel record. **
    The plaintiff, on the trial, produced the original record from New York, regularly authenticated, showing that both defendants were arrested in that suit.
    The defendant offered, in evidence, a document, accompanying the deposition '-f the clerk of the court in New York, *which, [101 in addition ro- Uie record, contained a copy of the capias ad re spondendum. with the return indorsed upon it, “Not found as to Morley.”
    
      The question is, whether this evidence is admissible under the plea of nul tiel record.
    
    Whittlesey and Newton, for the plaintiff;
    Exemplification offered in evidence shows, that both defendants in the suit in New York were served with process ; and the only question is, whether, under the plea of nul tiel record, the defendant here, by evidence dehors the record, can contradict it, and show that in fact process was not served on him.
    The rule is, that a record in itself imports absolute verity. Under the act of Congress, the record is to have the same force and effect here as in New York where the judgment was rendered. In that state the judgment would be conclusive. In the Bank of Columbia v. Newcomb, 6 Johns. 97, which was an action of debt on a joint judgment against two, when one only had been served with process, the defendant plead nul tiel record, and a special plea setting up the want of service. The court on demurrer gave judgment against the defendant. The same principle is recognized in Dando v. Tremper, 2 Johns. 87; Meacham v. Dudley, 6 Wend. 514; Grasebrook v. McCreedie, 9 Wend. 437.
    Whether the defendant might protect himself under a different state "of pleadings, is a matter not now to be considered; but it would violate all rules of law as to the force and effect of a record» to permit it to be impeached by secondary evidence, on the plea of nul tiel record.
    
    Todd and Hoeeman, for the defendant,
    insisted that the record was void as to this- defendant. They cited Spencer v. Brockway, 1 Ohio, 122; Goodrich v. Jenkins, Wright, 348; Weyer v. Zane. 3 Ohio, 305; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. 543; Hampden v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234; Mills v. Duryce, 7 Cranch, 481; Bissell 102] v. Briggs, 9 Mass. *462; Kilburne v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. 37; Robison v. Ward, 8 Johns. 86; Tayler v. Phelps, 1 Gill & Johns. 492; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Jacobs v. Hull, 12 Mass. 25 ; Andrews v. Montgomery, 19 Johns. 162; Thomas v. Robison, 3 Wend. 267 ; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine, 460 ; Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall. 302; Buford v. Buford, 4 Munf. 241; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cowen, 292; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Woodward v. Tremere, 6 Pick. 354; Case of the Marshalsea, 10 Rep. 70; Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40; Thurbur v. Blackbourne, 1 N. H. 243; Kibbe v. Kibbe, Kerby, 119; Bartlett v. Knight, 1 Mass. 405.
   Grimke, J.

That the plea of nul tiel record puts in issue only the existence of the record is one of those maxims which admits of no exception. It is true the doctrine with regard to the effect of a judgment of a sister state, has undergone as many and as important changes as any other in the law, but on this precise question, whether on the single plea of nul tiel record, to an action of debt on such a judgment, you can go out of the record, there never has been any departure from the rule originally established. It Dando v. Tremper, 2 Johns. 87, where a suit was brought against two defendants, but the writ as to one of them was returned not found,, the plaintiff having obtained a judgment by default against both defendants, which was regularly entered according to the statute, brought an action of debt on this judgment, to which the defendants who had not been served with process pleaded nul tiel record, it was held that the original judgment being in force against both, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against both on this plea. In that case both the original suit and the suit upon the judgment were brought in the State of New York. But the constitution and laws of the United States have declared that full faith and credit shall be given in one state to the records of another; the meaning of which has been determined to be that they shall be taken to import absolute verity. This was so settled in the case of Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481, and this determination produced an immediate change in *the-decisions of the vari- [103 ous states. In Mills v. Duryee, the defendant had been served with process, and it was held in general terms, that the judgment of another state stood upon the same footing with domestic judgments, or rather that they were to all intents and purposes domestic judgments, and that nul tiel record was the only plea which could be plead of matter not arising subsequent to the judgment. But very soon a class of cases came before the same court, where the defendant had not a day in court, and a distinction was then .taken between such judgments, and those which had been rendered after personal notice. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheaton, 129.

In Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232, Parker, C. J., says, this court yielded a painful deference to the decision of Mills v. Duryee, without that close examination it would have received if presented to them otherwise than incidentally. In Hall v. Williams there were two defendants; they pleaded, first, nul tiel record; second that they had no notice of the original action; third, one of them pleaded separately that he never was an inhabitant of the' state in which the original suit was prosecuted, or a resident therein, etc. To the second and third pleas, there was a replication averring that the defendants are estopped from denying an appearance by the record, which shows that they did appear. The record was set forth, and it did not show the fact which was alleged as a matter of estoppel, the appearance of both defendants; judgment was therefore given against the replication setting up the estoppel. So in Starbuck v. Murray, 5 Wend. 148, it was held that to an action of debt on a judgment rendered in a sister state, commenced by attachment of goods, a defendant may plead in bar that no process wa’s ever served upon him in the original suit in which the judgment was rendered, and that he never appeared in person or by attorney, although in the record it was averred that the defendant appeared to the suit. These decisions necessarily followed after the qualification which had been given to the case of Mills v. Duryee, by the very court in which it was heard. They seemed to be indispensable, in order to give import and meaning to the distinc104] tion which had *been established between those proceedings where the party has had a day in court, and those where he has not. But not one of them has in the least degree varied the rule first laid down that where ml tiel record is the only plea, the existence of the record is the only matter put in issue. It is unnecessary to decide whether the evidence offered in this case would have been proper under a different state of pleading. It is enough to say that it is not admissible under the plea pleaded. 
      
      In Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380, to an action of debt on a judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Rhode Island, the defendant plead, that the writ in the original action was no otherwise served on him than by attaching “ certain turnpike shares,” which were not his. The plaintiff replied that process was served on the defendant according to the laws of Rhode Island, and that he appeared to the action by his attorney, John B. Snow, plead the general issue, and after a judgment against him, appealed therefrom to the Supreme Court. The defendant, in his rejoinder, denied the facts set out in the replication; and upon these allegations issue was joined. The court allowed the defendant to show that the attorney of record had no authority to appear for him; and also to prove the other facts contained in the plea. Hosmer, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: “No sufficient objection arises from the expression, that the defendant appeared by hia attorney. The attention of the court is seldom, if ever, called to the inquiry, unless specially directed to it, whether a person claiming to be the attorney of the party, is really such; and the record, by the management of the plaintiff, need never be destitute of this affirmation.” See Harrod v. Barnetts, 1 Hall, 155, where a similar plea was held bad, on demurrer, because it contained no positive averment that the defendant had not appeared, in the original suit.