Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-12-04
In the Circuit Court for Baltimore
j. W. j. NILES AND CHARLES MCGEE VS.. Hem
ONDERDoNK.


j. w. j. NILES AND CHARLES MCGEE VS.. HENRY
ONDERDoNK.
This action is instituted by the plaintiffs against
the defendant TO recover the amount of o judgment
rendered by the Circuit Court at jacksonville,
Monroe County, in the State Of Tennesses, in favor
of the plaintiffs against the defendant for $2,62S90.
AZ the trial of the the plaintiffs 10 prove the
existence of such judgment, offered the following
paper, being record Of the 9dgnent, Which wat
objected TO by the defendant. Upon an inspection
OF the record offered in evidence, it will be seen
that the Judgment was rendered by the Court with
out any notice whatever TO the defendant and with
out any appearance by him. In all actions in per-
sonam Except proceedings in divorce) the author-
ties concur in denying all jurisdiction Whatever
over nonresident foreigners (it admitted that
the defendant was not at the date Of the Judgment
a resident of Tennessee) upon anything short Of
actual notice given within the territorial limits Of
the forum, OF voluntary appearance there. Darcy
VS.. Ketchum, III Howard U. S. l65; Buchanan VS..
Rucker, . East 1872 Steel VS.. Smith, Z w. and S.
All; Miller VS.. Miller, Bailey 242 Saller VS..
Hays, Mo. ZIG; Gillett VS.. Camp, % Mo. 575 !;
Williams VS.. Preston 3 l. l. Marsh coo; Cobb VS.
8 Dana 392; Harris VS.. John, 1. l. Marsh Isl ;
Berthwick vs. Allen, s Mass 213; Bissel VS.. Briggs,
Mass a62 Phillips Us. Brown, Curb $50; Hall
vs. Williams, Pick 232; Warren VS.. Mccarthy
&C., % Ill. %; Sim VS.. Frank, Id. 1875; Howard VS.
Barnto Hall 1861 Smith VS.. Smith, 81 I'll. 4s2
Flanders VS.. Foreman, % Howard U. S, 1872;
Shumpay vs. Stilman, 6 Ward 447; Bissell vs..
Whelack IL Curb 277; Hopkins VS.. Bridges, How
and NJ as; Hunt VS.. johnson, Freeman's CT. 2s2 !;
Fullerton vs. Hutton II Vt. 425; AdamsEs' Lamar,
Geo. So Ridgley VS.. Webster, II n II. 2s9, 81
Ala. 39l, 80 Me. 415 Dana IA, Rand II, 2
McMullin l62; Pattison vs.. Mayheld; 10 La. 300.
In the case of Darcy VS.. Ketchum, IL Howard
u. S. l65, it appeared that a judgment had been
rendered in the State Of New York in favor of
Ketchum against Gossip s. D'Arcy upon a partner
Il, 4I,o ar
GOSSIP and no service on darcy, who was an in
habitant of Louisiana. Judgment was rendered
against him in accordance with New York Stat
ute, which provided that where joint debtors were
served and one Of them was brought into Court,
judgment should go against the others in like man
ner as if they were served with process the service
Of process on one being regarded as constructive
service on the rest. An action upon this Judgment
Wac brought in the Circuit Court Of the United
States against ID Arcy. The Court held that under
the act Of May 26, $780, the record entitled TO
full faith and credit and gave Judgment according
ly. The judgment of the Circuit Court reversed
in the Supreme Court on appeal wnere it was held
that the Courts of New York acquired no jurisdic-
ton over d Arcy, and that not being citizen or
inhabtant Of that State he could not be affected by
laws TO which he was not amenable. See Story on
Conflict of Laws, Sc- 600 O.. Arndt VS.. Arndt, 10
Ohio r. 80; NcViche VS.. Budy 81 Maine X. BIG.
am not sure that the would not be the result
even il the defendant had been citizen OF Tonnes
see and temporarily absent cd Kent Com 1907
and l refer 10 the case of Webster VS.. Reed, ii
Howard 437, where Justice Mclean uses the follow
ing language: these suits were not proceeding
ia rem against the land but we're In persOnam
against the owners of it. Whether they all resided
in the territory or not does not appear, nor is It
matter of any Importance. No person is required
TO answer in suit on whom process has not been
served, or whose property has not been attached.
In this case there was no personal notice nor at
tachment or other proceedings against the land IN
til after the judgments. The judgments are tnere-
fore utilities and did not authorizes the executions
on which the land was sold" This however IS not
necessary to be decided in this CASE, as 1t was con-
coded that the defendant was not citizen OF Ten
nessee al the time Of the rendition Of the udg ment
In which case the authorities are clear that the
cord is a nullity. Objection sustained.