The national Republican., 1866-12-13
Ths Courts.
SUPREME CouaT OF rnE UNiTID SrArEs.-

On motion sf Mr.. Attorney G-nsrs ssssbsry. p.
Henry 6myth, 1sq., Of Ohio. was admitted IN at.
tornsy and counsellor Of this court.
Ne. a. Richard Chrssnss plaintiff In error, Vs.
John hs..: u: =; T.: .S~;S: q, <. e. .s
ant in error and concluded BY Mr. Carlisle for the
PLAINTIFF in error.
No 40. james Brown, appellant. ". Rugsuis p.
b" This essss vas sressd by NJ Carlisle for
the appellant In error, and By Mr.. Rsvsrdy John.
son for the appellee In error.
No. ~. James Brown, appellant, ys william n.
johnson. This cause was submittsd 70 the eopsid.
sration Of the court on the record and printed
argument y Mr.; Carlisle e, n: aPpell.ns. =,
NJ 8. y. w s, R ;.s !. :'s H. u:
was submitted 10 the eonsidsration Of the court
the E,s~d and printed srgumsns By Mr.. Peek for
the dsfsrdAnts In error = shI. atf .|.HN |
No 50. ssnasi Losks, plaintif IN saFor. " tbs
city Of Ns~ orlsans. This cause vas subnittsd 70
printed argument By Mr. Jsuin for The dsfsnaant
Nos. 81 and 81. Thomas J. Dsvidsop, plaintiff IN
srror, ". ". L Lsnisr. &s. The notion 70 dis.
miss thsss causes was submitted 10 ths sonsidsra-
ton Of the court on the rssosd and printed argu.
mont By Nj. Brent In support Of the ssus.
Adjourned until to-morIow, At II n.
.l'syaa. - NO zrit wapSispAr, psssnbsr "a
10 sysle1sns Q sossrses, vithss ths ssss T tie
Censsitssiss ,-JaSsmsss, o. svstssss s ds 70.
eStos.--hbeNoSo SHSsWpsoSs RseevsV, y" VVWb w.
John ". RnsssH sS Of &e.-This cause ccnss up
BY writ Of error f0r The Southern District Of hisss
AZ action Of debt was commenced in thu. sosrt
On The 4sh day Of Juss. 1852 sg.inss tAs p,air.if
vhsssa he plaintiff below recovered the sun of
1s, es4 with Interest from March !, l84l.
The dsesadant pleaded that d the time thsoau
Of action occurred and thsncsforth until suit was
brought he was resident Of Mssisslppl. and that
- - A.-- L.
cot Of limitation Of that State II the suit had been
brought therein and 90, By the law Of Misassippi,
no action could BE- maintained In that State upon
the Judgment that the judgment sst forth vas OBJ.
tanned by The plaintiff By his frsud; that the sur
in which jsdsnes,M - &c, obtained w.s in,titStsd e
The plaintiff dsmuTsd 70 these pleas, and the
dsmurTsr was sustAinsd. The question now is % 70
The sssisnsy Of those pleas TO bar the action, and
II is sontsndsd By plaintiff II error that the ffsud
Of he plhintid 10 procuring ths judgusnt II vsll
pleaded and proven, would have barred The action
sndsf the sstabishsd rule Of lsv and - laid down
by this eourt In the sass Of Webster ". Reid, III
How, Al, 460) That this 10 also the ruls 10 Ken.
tueky. where the judgment Wa rendered. The SO.
ond and sixth pleas were intended 70 set up de-
ing statute Of Mississippi, adopted In February
1887. going into effect 10 November Of that year:
| mo sotion shall be maintained on any Judgment
or dsorss rendered BY any court without this State
against any person who, at the time Of the com.
msnesmsnt Of the action 10 which such judgment
or decree or shall bs rendered. was or shall be
resident Of this State In any case whore the cause
Of action would have been barred BY any act Of
limitation Of this State, II such suit had been
brought therein" .-...
rhs defendant In error insists that the plea Of
fraud In obtaining the judgmsnt the Court Of Mis-.
sissppi had NO authority 70 inquire into; that By
the Afss section Of the fourth article Of the Consti
tuition Of the United States the rssord from Ken.
tuoky was conclusive In the Aissssippi court. Bat
II tie p,sa was permissible at I'll, q vas insuia-
frsad was psrpstrstsd In obtaining the Judgment
As TO the statute Of Mississippi referred to, II was
not passsd until four ysas after the suit was COM
mspesd and vent Into eject but eleven days before
judgnsnt vas rsndsrsd. But The set d uneonsti-
tu.ion. = Il clearly iuP.irs The obligation Of con.
in eonaet With The nrst section of the fourth article
Of the Consultation Of the United States. aE g. 2
N these Preparations the plaintiff In error replies
ths sense Of the ConStitution; that It 10 not an
press contrast at sll II only conducive evidence
Of fssts from which the law implies . contract.
When, therefore, this judgment vss sued on In
Mississippi, II was sued upon - such conclusive
svid:ses d Tests sPss Isish an Implied eons,.o,
| Of the State, no such contract could Be implied,
then the law Of Mississippi has not impaired ths
| obligation Of any contract In denying any remedy
In tho premises. Nor does the statute Of Missis.
sppi deny to tho Kentucky record the full faith and
credit guaranteed to II by the Constitution. In
the present case full faith and credit and effect
evidence given to this record, - conclusive Of
everything thereby appearing, and II did thus sp.
pear that Il had no other foundation thar certain
contract which fell within the purvisw Of the Mis-.
sissippi statute.
IN. Carlisle and J. D. Mcpherson for plaintiff
In error; John ". Russell opposed.
Rssidssoss Of tie Jndgss Of tie Supreme Court Q,
| the United Sfafss.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase, street north, corner
| Of Sixth street west
Ar. Justice Wayne, No. Franklin Plses,
street.
Mr.. Justice Nelson, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Grisr, No. Q north A street, Capitol
Hill. 100 ..-vs,. a.. a, ..
Mr.. Justice Clifford, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Swayns, Willards Hotel
| Nr. Justice Miller, National Hotel.
| NJ. Justice Davis. National Hotel
Mr. Justice Field, Willsrd's Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
1 D. W. Middlston, clerk, No. 5o8 New Jersey
| avenue.