Case ID: app-dc_41/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Van Orsdel", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEGGE v. BAXTER.
    Foreign .Judgment; Coluaterau Attack.
    In an action on a foreign judgment, technical objections by the defendant attacking the validity of the judgment will not be considered, where the court rendering it is shown to have had jurisdiction.
    No. 2542.
    Submitted November 3, 1913.
    Decided December 1, 1913.
    Tddaring on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in an action upon a foreign judgment.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    This is an action in debt upon a foreign judgment recovered against William W. Rogge, appellant, defendant below, on March ¡51, 1897, in the court of law and chancery of the city of Norfolk, State of Virginia.
    
      Defendant pleaded mil tiel record, assailing the original judgment chiefly upon the grounds that the process was defective, and that he was not legally served with any process in the case. It appears that summons was duly issued as required by the laws of Virginia, and returned with the following indorsement:
    Executed this 18th day of January, a. d. 1897, by serving a copy hereof on Nellie A. Degge. Not finding W. W. Degge at his usual place of abode this, the 18th day of January, 1897, I served a copy hereof on Nellie A. Degge, his wife, she being there, and a member of his family over the age of sixteen years, and gave information of its purport to her.
    John E. Lawler,
    By W. A. Thompson, Dep’y.
    
      Mr. A. Lefkuich Sinclair for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Jackson H. Ralston and Mr. William E. Richardson for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The service appears to have been made in strict compliance with the provisions of sec. 3207 of the statutes of Virginia, which is entitled: “Mode of Serving Notice; Evidence of Service.” It reads as follows: “A notice, no particular mode of serving which is prescribed, may be served by delivering a copy thereof in writing to the party in person; or, if he be not found at his usual place of abode, by delivering such copy and giving information of its. purport to his wife, or any person found there -who is a member of his family, and above the age of sixteen years; or, if neither he nor his wife, nor any such person be found there, by leaving such copy posted at the front door of said place of abode.”

This service was sufficient to give the Virginia court jurisdiction of defendant. Jurisdiction being established, we will not stop to inquire into the numerous technical objections interposed to tbo validity of the Virginia, judgment. If meritorious, they should have been presented there. The courts here will not consider matters collaterally attacking a foreign judgment. Defendant’s contentions are without merit as affecting the jurisdiction of the Virginia court. The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.