Case ID: scl_29/html/0277-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Evans, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas W. Letson ads. J. S. Wadsworth.
    
    1. An exemplification of a record of the City Court pf New York, purporting to be the transcript of a judgment rendered in that Court, duly attested by the Clerk, and certified by the Chief Justice to be in due form of law, must be taken to be such as constituted a judgment by the laws of New YPrk. And where in an action of debt on such judgment it appeared from the exemplification that the, defendant was a party to the proceedings, that must be regarded as true, although it does not appear to have been done in the way required by our laws.
    2. When effect is attempted to be given to the judgments of another State, they are examinable so far at least as to enquire whether the defendant was a party to the proceeding,
    
      3. Where, under the plea of nul tiel record, the defendant proposed to go into evidence to shew that he was not in the State of New York when the action purported to have been commenced, the issue under that plea being decided by the Court, upon inspection of the record, the proposed evidence was inadmissible.
    4. Had the alleged fact appeared on the record, the plaintiff should have been nonsuited, but as it was to be established by other evidence, it could be decided only on some other and appropriate plea.'
    
      Before Evans, J. at Charleston, March Term, 1843.
    This was an action of debt on the exemplification of a judgment of the City Court of New York. Plea — nul tiel record.
    
    
      Exemplification of Judgment.
    
    The people of the State of New York, by the grace of God free and independent, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Know ye that we, having inspected the files of the Superior Court of the City of New-York, do find a certain judgment record there remaining on file, in the words and figures following, to wit:
    Pleas in the Superior Court of the City of New York, held at the City Hall in said City, in and for the City and County of New York, before the Justices of the same Court, on the twenty eighth day of October, of the term of October, eighteen hundred and forty-one.
    Witness, Samuel Jones, Esq. Chief Justice. ■
    Charles A. Clinton, Clerk.
    
    
      City and County of New York.
    
    James S. Wadsworth, plaintiff in this suit, by Stephen C. Williams, his attorney, complains of Thomas W. Letson, defendant, therein in custody, <fec. of a plea of trespass on the case, upon promises. For that whereas, the said defendant, on the first day of October, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, at New York, to wit: at the city and county aforesaid, was indebted to the said plaintiff in the sum of six hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, for so much money before that time lent and advanced by the said plaintiff to the said defendant, and at the special instance and request of the said defendant; and being so indebted, the said defendant, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said plaintiff, well and truly to pay unto the said plaintiff, the said sum of money last above mentioned, when the said defendant should be thereunto afterwards requested ; and whereas, also, the said defendant afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, was indebted to the said plaintiff in the further sum of six hundred dollars, like lawful money, as aforesaid, for so much money before that time paid, laid out and expended by the said plaintiff, to and for the rise of the said defendant, and at the like special instance and request of the said defendant; and being so indebted, the said defendant, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last ^aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, undertook, and then and thére faithfully promised the said plaintiff, well and truly to pay unto the said plaintiff, the said sum of money last above mentioned, when the said defendant. should be thereunto afterwards requested. And whereas, also, the said defendant afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, at the place aforesaid, was indebted to the said plaintiff, in the further sum of six hundred dollars, like lawful money as aforesaid, for money before that time had and received by the said defendant, to and for the use of the said plaintiff, and being so indebted, the said defendant, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said plaintiff, well and truly to pay unto the said plaintiff, the said sum of money last above mentioned, when the said defendant should be thereunto afterwards requested. And whereas, also, the said defendant afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, accounted together with the said plaintiff, of and concerning divers other sums of money before that time due and owing from the said defendant to the said plaintiff, and then and there being in arrear and unpaid, and upon such accounting, the said defendant then and there was found to be in arrear and indebted to the said plaintiff, in the further sum of six hundred dollars, like lawful money as áforesaid, and being so found in arrear, and indebted to the said plaintiff, the said defendant, in consideration thereof, afterwards, to wit: on the same day and year last aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid, undertook, and then and there faithfully promised the said plaintiff, well and truly to pay unto the said plaintiff, the said- sum of money last above mentioned, when the said defendant should be thereunto afterwards requested. Nevertheless, the said defendant, (although often requested, (fee.) hath not yet paid the several sums of money above mentioned, or auy or either of them, or any part thereof, to the said plaintiff, but to pay the same, or any part thereof, to the said plaintiff, the said defendant hath hitherto wholly refused, and still doth refuse, to the damage of the said plaintiff of six hundren dollars, and therefore the said plaintiff brings suit, (fee.
    With which declaration, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the said plaintiff filed the copy of a certain promissory note, upon which*? the said suit was brought, which said note was in these words and figures, to Avit:
    
      New York, July 17, 1840.
    $290.
    Seven months after date, I promise to pay to the order of W. S. Crouch, Two Hundred and Ninety Dollars, for value received.
    (Signed,) Thomas W. Lestqn.
    Endorsed, W. S. Crouch.
    And it is suggested to the said court, now here, that the said declaration has been duly filed with the clerk of this coort, at the city hall, in the city of New York; that a copy of said declaration and said note and notice of rule to plead, duly served on the defendant’s attorney; and now, at this day, that is to say, on the eleventh day of December, of December term, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, to Avhich day the said defendant had leaAre to the declaration aforesaid to imparle and then to answer the same before the justices of said court, at the city hall, in the city of New York, come, as well the said plaintiff by his attorney aforesaid, as the said defendant in his proper person ; and the said defendant defends the wrong and injury, when, (fee. and says nothing in bar or preclusion of the said action, whereby the said plaintiff remains therein undefended against the said defendant; therefore, the said plaintiff ought to recover against the said defendant, the damages by occasion of the premises, and hereupon the said plaintiff prays judgment, and the damages sustained by occasion of the non-performance of the said promises and undertakings in the said declaration mentioned, to be adjudged to the said plaintiff, &c. And because it is suggested and proved, and manifestly appears to the said court now here, that the said plaintiff hath sustained damages on occasion of the premises’, to three hundred and six dollars and forty cents, besides the costs and charges in and about this suit expended..
    Therefore, it is considered, that thp said plaintiff recover against the’ said defendant, the damages on occasion of the premises as aforesaid, by the court now here assessed, and also fourteen dollars and ninety-four' cents, for the costs and charges by the said plaintiff, and with bis - assent; which said damages, costs and charges, in the whole,' amount to three hundred and twenty-one dollars and thirty-four cents ; and the said defendant in mercy, die. Filed December 11th, 1841, at five minutes past 11 o’clock. All which we have caused by these presents to be exemplified, and the seal of the Superior Court of the City of New York, to be hereunto annexed.
    Witness, Samuel Jones, Esquire, Chief Justice of our said ' Court, at the City Hall of the said City, this nineteenth day 0 f February, A, D, 1842.
    (Signed,) C. A. Clinton, Clerk.
    
    Judgment signed the 11th of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-one,
    S. Jones,
    By the Honorable Samuel Jones, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the City of New York, it is hereby certified, that Chas, A. Clinton, whose name is subscribed to the above exemplification, is Clerk of the Superior Court of the City of New York, and that the attestation thereof is in due form,
    Given under, myshand at the City of New York, this nineteenth day of February, A, D, 1.842,
    (Signed,) Samuel Jones.
    The presiding Judge was of opinion that enough appeared on the face of the judgment, to shew that the defendant was personally1 a party in court, when the judgment was rendered.
    On the second ground, it will be necessary to state, that the action was debt on a judgment, in the city court of New York, certified in the usual way. The only plea was, nul tiel 
      record. Under this plea, the defendant desired to go into evidence, to shew that he was not in the State of New .York when the action purported to have been commenced, and therefore, he had not been personally served; and therefore no judgment could have been rendered, on which an action would lie in this State.
    The court considered the evidence inadmissible, and the plaintiff had a verdict.
    
      Defendant appealed. ■
    
    For a non-suit — that it appears on the face of the exemplification, that the defendant was not served with process of any kind.
    For a new trial — that his Honor ought to have admitted evidence, that the defendant was absent from the State of New York, when the suit was commenced, and when the judgment was recorded, and so no jurisdiction and no record.
    
      Petigru, for the motion.
    There was no writ or evidence of service. The record is not perfect, and therefore no record.
    The question of jurisdiction is always examinable. Where the jurisdiction is wanting, there can be no record. Cited 6 Wendell, 447.
    
      J B. Thompson, contra,
    cited 1 Hill, 439; 1 Tidd, 595 ; 1 Bailey, 246.
   Curia, per

Evans, J.

The exemplification of the record sets out, that a copy of the declaration and note with a rule to plead, had been served on the defendant’s attorney ; and that afterwards, the defendant appeared in person. The exemplification purports to be a transcript of a judgment, and the Chief Justice certifies that the attestation is in due form of law, and from hence, I think, we must infer that the record certified by the clerk is such as constitutes a judgment by the laws of New York. The forms of judicial proceedings are different in different States. Every State may have its own peculiar modes of commencing actions, and the certificate of the Judge must be regarded as evidence that the record is what it purports to be, according to the laws of the State in which it is rendered. We are bound by the constitution of the United States to give full faith and credit to every thing which appears from the exemplification ; and where, as in this case, it does appear the defendant was a party to the proceedings, we must regard that as true, although it does not appear to have been done in the. way required by our laws.

But I think the decisions fully establish that where effect is attempted to be given to the judgments of another Slate, they are examinable so far at least as to inquire whether the defendant was a party to the proceeding; for by the laws of all civilized countries, no man is bound by a judicial proceeding to which he was no party, of which he had no notice, and had no opportunity of making his defence. How such a defence may be made, may be somewhat uncertain. In the case in 6 Wendell, 449, it was pleaded specially. In Miller vs. Miller, 1 Bailey, 242, it was given in evidence under the plea of nihil debit. In this case it was offered under the plea of nul tiel record. The issue on this plea, is decided by the court by inspection of the record, and not by intrinsic evidence. If it appeared on the record, then the plaintiff should have been non-suited, but as it was to be established by other evidence, it could be decided only on some other and appropriate plea.

The motions are dismissed.

Richardson, O’Neall, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.