Case ID: ohio_6/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collet, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Goodrich v. Henry W. Jenkins.
    The plea of nul tiel record to an action on a judgment of a sister state, draws nothing into controversy hut the existence of that record.
    Matter properly to be investigated in the original case, in an action on a judgment in a sister state, can not be drawn into controversy in Ohio.
    This cause came up from the county of Huron. It was an action of debt, founded upon the transcript of a judgment rendered by the court of common pleas of Tompkins county, New York, at the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant. The declaration was in the usual form.
    The defendant pleaded several pleas:
    1. Nul tiel record.
    
    2. In substance, that the judgment set out in the declaration was rendered' on a penal bond for two thousand dollars, with a collateral condition to pay one thousand dollars in saudlery, at cash price; that the judgment was taken by default; that by a. statute of New York, in force when the judgment was rendered, it was provided that upon a judgment by default, on a penal bond, conditioned for the performance of some collateral matter, breaches should be assigned on the record, and damages should be assessed on the breaches for such amount as it should be proven had been sustained; that in this case no such breaches had been assigned, but that the judgment was for the whole penalty.
    *3. The same matter as the second, with the addition that the-
    consideration of the bond upon which the.judgment was rendered, was the sale and conveyance of a tract of land, the title to which, had failed before the rendition of the judgment, with an allegation, that four hundred dollars had been paid upon account of the condition of the bond.
    4. That before the rendition of the judgment, the defendant paid the plaintiff six hundred dollars, in payment of the condition of the bond, that no breaches were assigned on the default, or damages assessed, but judgment taken for the entire penalty. A notice-of set-off was also put in.
    The plaintiff joined issue, on the plea of nul tiel record, and demurred to the other pleas. The whole case was submitted to the-Supreme Court of Huron county, at the last term, and adjourned here for decision.
    No argument was furnished on either side.
   Collet, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

A judgment of a court, in the State of New York, is of the same-force here that it is in the court where it is rendered. The judgment now before us, being rendered by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, is doubtless final and conclusive between the parties until set aside or reversed, according to the regulations of the jurisdiction where it was rendered. 7 Cranch, 483; 1 Ohio, 261; 5 Ohio, 546.

The first plea in bar shows that very probably the judgment, is ii’regular or erroneous; but judgments of this description are. held conclusive between the parties, on the subjects involved, wherever the court had jurisdiction, whilst they remained unreversed.. 3 Ohio, 306.

The second plea in bar presents the additional question, that before the judgment was rendered, the consideration of the bond had failed. In New York, this matter could not have been pleaded in bar, to the action at law on the bond. But if it could, it was matter to be investigated and decided; antecedent to the rendition of the judgment. No such matter can be examined into, in an action on the judgment.

The other pleas in bar amount to nothing but a partial payment made on the bond, before suit brought. This would have been no' bar to the original action ; nor can partial payment be pleaded in bar to an action on the j udgment itself, if actually *made upon [45 it. Part performance is no answer to any action. It can only prevail in adjusting the actual amount due, or in the character of accord and' satisfaction, in which it is not pretended to be here used. The rule is inflexible in this country. In an action upon the transcript of a judgment, in a sister state, nothing can be pleaded or proved, that could have been pleaded and proved in the original action, whether it was so pleaded and proved or not. The demurrers are sustained, and the pleas in bar overruled.

Upon the plea of nul tiel record, the court find for the plaintiff, for whom the judgment must be entered.