Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-07-18
MetcaIf VS.. City Of WATERFOWL.

Vic ruling Vi GnC
court in the M etcalf bond case. The
ruling is too lengthy to publish entire,
but anyone interested may have the
same for perusal by applying at this
Office. We, however, here give some
extracts. Chief Justice Fuller stated
the facts of the case in the following
language:
This was an action brought June 29, 1888, in
the circuit court of the United States for the
western district of Wisconsin, by citizen of
ONO, the assignee of certain persons who
were assgnees in different proportions of q
Judgment for the sum of SO, 207. sc, recovered
April 9, 1866, in the circuit court of the Unit
ed States for the district of Wisconsin. by
citizen of Tennessee against a municipal
corporation of Wisconsin. The petition hav
ing been amended Tin accordance with the
opinion delivered by this court when the case
was before it at former term, and reported
in 1873 U. S. 5S6, Sup. CT. 1873 by showing that
this plaintiff aSSignOrS were citizens of other
states than Wisconsin, the defendant an
swered that the cause OF action did not arise
within ten years before this action was
brought, and that the action was therefore
barred by the statute of limitations of Wis
cOnSln. The case having been submitted to
the circuit court for trial without q Jury
that court, on August 2, 1889, so held and
having filed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, rendered judgment for the defend
ant. The plaintiff sued out this writ of err
rOr.
The Revised Statutes of Wisconsin of 1849
chapter l27 AID applied one limitation to all
judgments of courts of record within the
United States, as follows: Every judgment
and decree in any court of record of the
United States, or of any state or territory
of the United States, shall be presumed to be
paid and satisfied at the expiration of twenty
years after the Judgment or decree was rem
dered.''
The Revised Statutes Of 1853 (chapter 1889
contain the following provisions:
Section !. Civil actions can only be COM
menced within the periods prescribed in this
chapter, Except when in special cases q diff
ferent limitation is prescribed by statute"
''Sec. ID The periods prescribed in section
one of this chapter, for the commencement
of actions other than for the recovery of real
property, shall be as follows:
See. l5 Within twenty years 1. An ac
ton upon ajudgmentor decree of any court
of record of this state. 2. An action upon a
sealed instrument, when the cause of action
accrues within this state.
Sec. Is. Within ten years l. An action
upon a Judgment Or decree of any court of
record of any state or territory within the
United states or of any court of the United
States. 2. An action upon a sealed instru-
ment, when the cause of action accrued with
out this state"
In the Revised Statutes of 1878 SECTIONS 1920,
422D the language of the provisions as to ac-
tions on judgments is modified SO as to ill.,
clude in the limitation Of twenty years IAN
action upon Judgment or decree of any
court Of record of this state, or of the United
States, sitting within this state" and to con-
fine the limitation Of ten years to IAN action
upon judgment or decree of any court
of record of any other state or territory of
the United States, or of any court Of the
United States, sitting without this state
By reason of a saving clause in section 1884,
the case at bar is not governed by these
statutes, but by the statutes of 1858.
In delivering the opinion Of the
court, Justice Fuller opened by saying:
1t will be perceived that the questions aris-
,l,4x,
meaning, applicability, and validity of the
first paragraph of section Is of the Revised
Statutes of Wisconsin of 1858, which, taken
in connection with sections / and II, barred
IAN action upon judgment or decree of any
court of record of anys tatelor territory with
in the United States or of any court of the
United States, =" i'll ten years, The contention
of the plaintiff is that, under proper con
StructiOn of the paragraph. judgments or de-
crees Of the courts of the United States sit
ting within the state of Wisconsin are not in |
cluded therein, and that, if this were not So
it would be so far unconstitutional. Defend
ant claims that such judgments or DEGREES
plainly fall within the statute, no room being
left for construction; and that it is valid as
to suits on federal judgments or DEGREES in
the state courts, and therefore valid as to
suits on such judgments or DEGREES III feder-
al courts, under the thirty-fOurth section of
the Judiciary act of 1859.
BY that section it was provided that 1.-The
laws of the several states except where the
constitution, treaties or statutes of theUnIted
States shall otherwise require or provide,
shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials
at common law in the courts of the United
States, in cases where they apply" and this
was carried forward into section 72l of the
Revised Statutes. And from the beginning
this court has recognized statutes CT limita-
lions of actions real and personal, as enacted
by the legislature OF state, and as construed
by its highest court. as rules of decision in
the courts Of the United States.
Here follow numerous citations and
an exhaustive argument, and further
on the ruling states:
But we do not understand defendants
counsel to contend that state has power to
regulate or vary the proceedings or iudg-
ments Of the United States courts as such, or
that congress can either delegate its own
powers or enlarge those of a state, but that,
as mere question Of power, state may pre-
scribe limitations upon judgments without
regard to the court prOnOuncing them; that
a Judgment is simply record evidence OF the
debt or liability as between the parties; that
there is no institutional prohibition upon
the power to INIT actions thereon; and that
while actions on judgments in the courts of
the United States cannot be controlled by the
exercise of this power, that result is reached
under section III, which makes the law of the
state in that regard rule Of decision.
AS a general rule. this court follows the de-
cisiOns of the highest court OF state in the
construction of the statutes of the state, I'M
less they conflict with or impair the efficacy
of some provision Of the constitution of the
United States Or of an act Of congress; but
we think we are at liberty, and perhaps re-
Quired, under the circumstances existing
here to interpret this statute for ourselves.
In summing up and closing the case,
the court says:
The Revised Statutes of 1878 provided that
actions must be commenced within twenty
years upon a judgment Or decree OF any
court Of record of this state or of the United
States sitting within this state" and upon
sealed instrument when the cause of action
accrueS within this state, with an exception
relating to municipal bonds; and within ten
years upon judgment Or decree of any
court of record Of any other state Or terri
tory Of the United States, or OF any court Of
the United States, sittingswithout this state,
and upon sealed instrument when the
cause of action accrued without this state
with a similar exception as to municipal
bonds. Rev. St. 1878 IS 1920 1921.
The provisions of the Revised Statutes of
1855 under consideration (chapter 1873, p SID
were that the period OF time for the com
mencement of actions other than for the re-
cOvery of real property should be:
"Sec. Is. Within twenty years l. An ac-
ton upon judgment or decree of any court
Of record of this state. 2. An action upon a
sealed instrument when the cause of action
accrues within this state.
Sec. Is. Within ten years: l. An action
upon Judgment or decree of any court of
| record of any state or territory within the
| United States, or of any court Of the United
States. 2. A action q