The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-03-26
rHD COURTS.

OOlkT lhE ONlihD
Opinion,- Whsn Indignant q Conelntus in the
lSiais Where Pronounced, IL 10 Equally COneinsivs
EvaV,chers 10 the Court Of the United State
Act, Of Limitation in the Different Stafss-Riehdrd
Chriittuas, Plaintiff IN Error, %. John W. Rus.
,eH nse Of ac.--In error TO the Circuit Court for
the Southern district Of Mississippi. An action Of
debt was commenced In that court on the 4th OF
June, 1859, against the plaintiff In error upon
Judgment obtained In Kentucky wherein the plain.
tit below recovered the sum Of $o,634 with In
terest from March l, l94l.
The defence was that, at the time the cause Of
action accrued, and thencsforth until the suit was
brought, he was q resident Of Mississippi, and that
the cause Of action would have been barred BY an
act Of limitation OF that State II the suit had been
brought therein and so, BY the law Of Mississippi,
no action should be maintained In that State upon
the Judgment that the judgment set forth was OBJ
taned By the plaintiff BY his fraud that the suit
In which judgment was obtained was instituted to
evade the laws Of Mississippi and In fraud thereof
The plaintiff demurred TO these pleas, and the
demurrer was sustained. The question now 10 as 10
the suciency Of those pleas TO bar the action; and
II 10 eontendsd by the plaintiff In error that the
fraud Of the plaintiff below In procuring the judg
mont, II we'll pleaded and proven, would have
barred the action under the established rule Of law
and as laid down by this court In Webster vs.. Reid.
III How, AL, 400 That this 10 also the rule In
Kentucky, whore the judgment was obtained. The
second and sixth pleas were intended 70 set up q
defence which II e urged 10 sustained BY the fol-
lowing statute Of Mississippi, adopted In February
1857, going into effect in November Of that year:
mo action shall DO maintained on any judgment
or decree rendered BY any court without this State
against any person who, at the time Of the com.
mencement Of the action in which such judgment
or decree was or shall DO rendered, was or shall be
q resident Of this State, 10 any case where the
course Of action would have boon barred by any act
Of limitation Of this State, II such suit had been
brought therein"
Fn1Iovin1 d. IN. s,h,t.no. NJ n Iors on,nion In
the case, delivered by Mr.. Justice Clifford I'm.
doubtedly the second plea In this case Is sufficient
In form, and Il Is good answer to the action, II
the statute under which II Is framed Is valid law
and II II were possible to so regard II, and as q
statute Of limitations there would be little no
difficulty In the case Statutes Of limitation ope.
rating progressively do not impair vested rights, or
the obligation Of contracts Reasons Of sound policy
have led TO the adoption Of limitation laws both
BY Congress and the States and II not unreasonable
In their terms their validity cannot be questioned
Consequently II was held BY this court, In the
Of Elmoyle vs.. Cohen, Q3 Pet, 3l2) that the
statute Of limitations Of Georgia might DO pleaded
to an action In that State founded upon judgment
rendered In the State court Of South Carolina.
Cases, however, may arise where the provisions Of
the statute on that subject may be so stringent
and unreasonable as to amount to denial Of the
right, and In that event different rule would pro-
vail, It could longer be said that the remedy
only was affected BY the new legislation. tBron.
son vs. kinIie ct al, l How, 300
But the provision under consideration Is not
statute Of Limitation as known to the law or the
decisions Of the courts that subject. Limitation
| as used In such statutes means q bar to the al
legged right Of the plaintiff to recover In the action,
created by or arising out Of the lapse Of certain
time after the cause Of action occurred appointed
by law. (Bow Die, Title Linz Looking at the terms
this provision 1t Is quite obvious that It contains
no element which can give Il any such character.
Plain effect Of the provision Is to deny the right Of
the judgment creditor to sue at ALL under any cir
cumstances and wholly irrespective OF any lapse Of
| time whatever, whether longer or shorter. No
day Is given to such o creditor but the prohibi.
tion Is absolute that no such action shall be main.
tanned on any judgment or decree falling within
the conditions set forth In the provision. Those
| conditions addressed not to the judgment, but
to the cause Of action which was the foundation Of
the judgment Substantial import Of the provi.
sion is that judgments recovered in other States
against the citizens Of Mississippi shall not DO
forced In the tribunals Of that State II the
Of action which was the foundation Of the judg-
ment would have been barred in her tribunals by
her statute Of limitations.
| Nothing can be palmer than the proposition IT,,
that the judgment mentioned In the declaration
was q valid Judgment In the State where II was rem.
| dered, Jurisdiction Of tho cause undeniable,
and the defendant, being found In that jursdicon,
was duly served with process and appeared and
made full defence. Instead Of being a statute Of
limitations In any sense known to the law, the pro-
vision in legal effect Is but attempt to give op.
Grafton to the statute Of limitations Of that State
in all other States Of the Union, by denying the
efficacy Of any judgment recovered In another State
against q citizen Of Mississippi, for any cause Of
| action which was barred in her tribunals under
that law. Where the cause Of action which led to
| the judgment was not barred by her statute Of lin
itations, the judgment may be enforced, but II II
would have been barred in her tribunals, under heI
statute then the prohibition is absolute that
hall H. atnNa naH he linda
Under the Constitution Of the United States
TART. 4, sec. ~ which provides that "full faith
and credit shall BIO given In zach State to the pub
lie acts, records and judicial proceedings Of every
other State" and that "the Congress may, by
general laws, prescribe the manner In which suct
record shall DO proved and the effect thereof ant
In pursuance Of the act Of Congress, which pro
vides that the judicial records in one State shal
DO proved in the tribunals Of another, by tho at
testation Of the clerk under tho seal Of tho court
with the certificate Of the judge that the attesta
tion Is In due form, and that such records, so au
thenticated, "shall have such faith and credi
given to them In every other court In the United
States, as they have by law or usage In the court
Of the State from whence the said records were OIL
shall be taken" and under the decisions Of thi
court constituting that act II Is held that this pro
vision of the Mississippi statute is demonstrations
and void as affecting the right Of the plaintiff Il
enforce the judgment mentioned In the declaration
beyond all doubt" say the court, "tho judg
ment was valid In Kentucky, and conclusive be
tween the parties In all her tribunals. Such wa
the decision Of the highest court in the State
it was undoubtedly correct and If so, 1t is no
competent for any other State to authorize Its cour
to open the merits and review the cause, much les
to enact that such judgment shall not receive tn
same faith and credit that by law Is had in tn
State courts from which 1t was taken.
As to the error assigned, that the court erred IL
sustaining the demurrer to the fourth plea, whicl
alleged that the judgment was procured by th
fraud Of the plaintiff, tho court hold that as DO
tween parties and priories, whore cause of aetol
has been instituted In a proper forum, where al
matters Of defence were given to the party sued, 4
in this case, the judgment Is conclusive until 70
versed by q superior court having Jurisdiction o
the cause or until the Is set aside by diroc
proceeding in ohancery. (McRae vs.. Nation Il
Pick, 81 The judgment Of the Circuit Court /
therefore affirmed.