The New York herald., 1867-04-06
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

n
Omcial Opinions-Jndgments Conclusive In
the State Where Rendered, Equally Com
elusive Everywhere in the Courts Of the
United states-statutes Of Limitation When
UnconstitutiOnal. sNN
Richard Chrstmds. PldinsN In Error, John W.
Russeu, Of 6c-In to the Circuit Court for the
Southern district Of Mississippi An action Of debt
commenced in that court on the 4th Of June, 1889,
against the plaintiff in upon judgment obtained
In Kentucky, wherein the plaintiff below recovered the
sum Of S6,634 with interest from March ls41. The
defence that at tho time the OF action
crued, and thenceforth until the suit brought he
was resident OF Mississippi, and that the cause Of
action would have been barred by OF limitation OF
that State the suit had been brought therein and
by the Law OF Mississippi no action should be main.
tanned in that State upon the Judgment that
the judgment set forth was obtained by the
plaintiff by his fraud; that the suit in which
Judgment obtained was instituted 70 evade the laws
Of Mississippi and fraud thereof The plaintiff de-
INJURED these pleas and the demurrer sustained The
question now is the suciency OF those pleas TO
bar the action, and IL s contended BY the plaintiff 10
the judgment, we'll pleaded and proven. would have
barred the action under the established rule Of law and
.s LAID down By thi. count u Webster va Reid l1 How
Al 460 that this Is also the rule In Kentucky where
the Judgment obtained the second and sixth pleas
intended TO oct defence, which, u urged, is
In February, 1857 going into effect in November q that
ysar:'No action shall be maintained on any Judgment
:s rsssn . s Ss @ %
ment Of the action In which such judgment decree
wss @ shall Be rendsred was g shall be ssdsns q
have bssn 6esd 81 any ct Of limitation Of this ssss
if such sait bad been brought therssn.n II ~ ~,
osss Svs.d y N Su:ss cd t Ss
second plea In this caae y sucient in form, and
good answer q the acon u The statute under which Il b
formed ID vahd law; and II Il were possible 70 90 re
Mis = 10 dcuity In the case staauiss 81 limtasiou
e q posy eT
have led TO the adoption o. limitation lava both By Con.
'S g. 0
qusnty Il was held BY this coor iu the case Of Emoye
e 70 %: a. .S % s .s
founded upon judgment rendered in the STATE Court or
South Caroipa Cases, however may arise where the
gent and - % amount TO denial Of the
nehs and IN that event dldorent rule would prevail,
sa 0Pss' g ,ss ss s s:s sSs sss
son ". Kissie ss a. Il How, s1S: Ans and Linn, ls)
But the provision under consideration s MOT statute Of
limitation q known 70 the law the decisions Of the
cours that subject Limitation, ussd In suoh stat
utes bar % the alleged right Of tho PLAINTIFF TO
lapse Of certain time after the Of action socrued
Is appointed By Law. fBouv. Die, Title Linz Looking
a the terms OF this peovisou u s quite obvious that u
con aims no elcmentof any such character Plain effect
or the provision ID 10 deny the hight Of the judgment
creditor 70 sue a. ALL under any circumstance, and
whether longer or shorter No day Is given 70 such
credkor but the prohibition absolute that such
falling thin the conditions set forth In the provisions
Those conditions addressed not TO the judgment but
judgment subsansial Import Of the provision IS that
Judgments recovered in other States against
the citizens OF Mississippi snail not be en-.
the cause Of action which was the foundation OF the
Judgment would have been barred IN her tribunals by
Che proposition H. that tho Judgment mentioned in the
decarafion valid judgment in the State where II
was rendered jurisdiction Of the cause ca was Snaeni
f"ii defence @ instead y being statute Or limitations
effect attempt TO give operation 70 the statute
OF limitations or that State in all other states Of tho
IS q e
cause OF action which barred In her tribunals under
that law Where the Of action which led 70 the udg
ment was not barred by her statute OF limitations that
judgment may be enforced; bot II Il would have been
barred her tribunals under her statute, then the pro-
shs judgment Under tho consultation Of tho United
states art T. sec. H. which provides tnat "ful faith
and credit shan Ss gwen N eacn Sass y % Inc puDc sc
the manner IN witch such records shah b proved and
sss .s sDsS wsics provide sSss De ses rsoods 10
SGale shall b proved n The tribunals a anQeher BY the
Win he o.riaoss Of q: judge that me sssssios i i
doe form ana thsi suc records . ssthsneassd "shal
have such f!h ana crsds given e .hs~ IN every other
~.s - y han Ss I ssssn sS under the decisions O. this
e. ' sss "a Sss Is
egscsing The raeht o. ne plAintn 70 ENFORCE the
!9dsnsn. |sn.onsd z 'hs SsclarsiSs S syS.a s:%sS,
Sss ssS esHS II Ks..uesS. y ana ' oo.oasivs Sss~ssn
the parties in ali her bunae snch was the decision
oosrsct, md n sos " y nss ssmps.snt for any other
Sats 70 authoriss M courts 20 open the merits and 70.
-" 2: sa s s " .s "a sst Ss as
had IN the STATE courts nom which u wns taken As
% ~ esVe agnsd that shs Court erred IN sustaining
S e: . ss " I q Ss Ss The
Cout hold that = bslwesn parties and pnvsa where
SSsss IN % nS.ts &C of dsssnes were open 70 sSs party
susd sn this caas the Judgment y ccnclusys uns To-
vsrssd By superior court having jurisslcsscn s q ne
s r.. ass%sSs Z circuit Ccu 6 ;ssrsOs srnsa
The Prize Laws-Parsusrship Intsrese In =
Prfxe-1s the Ensire Partnership Rendered
Hesssse ~ Rneay Partacrs-The Decu-
mensary Chnrmcter Imprcssed upOu ve1eis.
The Nsassr Bceaiey and Cargo %. M Urited States. =
This steamer and cargo, consissInG Of nearly eight
husdrsd bales Of cotton and tupentne were cap
ursd In Jaly Ise3 about Two hundred and thirty mie'
from Mobile after brisk chase, by number Of our
n1VA so1s0sA Inc Wi1o "An uvushs W 49," o''s"
and there libslled. . aas .s.t
the only claim intsosed was hasof Joshua Brogdon
Of New Albany, indiana, who alleged that, @
member Of the nrm Of Cor, Brainerd o., Of
Mobsle he owned onssissh Of the vessel and cargo
fer which interest he prayed restitution Brosdof
chained that he was citizen OF Indiana and true
and loyal citizen Of The Uasd States and that during
The year 1s62 the rsbs attempted BY pretended decret
OF his firm. .
ms eosrs sssw s,snsssd sns claim and condemned
This appeal was thsn taksD, shs appsliant ciainnt
thss hs psupsvy IN Ne vSss sna cargo cenpee b Tor
ssssS sss ~ ss a. ss, esS ssssy s's
that The Prcpsry wnsvby bin snRoysd IN s.y name,
sns.s n s'ss ~ -. u 49, tes~vns
ona CODE determines The nature Of that thing but th
character Of the person 70 whom belongs. The dom
Gil Of the party v the xue test Of national character
and determines the nature Of property. mt
esstsins ~ spp'isabSs V civil ~ wsll - inter