Harryman v. Roberts

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants instituted a non-resident attachment suit, against the appellee, and caused the writ to he laid in the-hands of sundry persons as garnishees, against whom suits, were docketed in the usual form. The appellee, defendant helow, appeared to the short, note case, and pleaded 1st. Not indebted as alleged. 2nd.

That he did not promise as alleged. 3rd. That prior to the institution of this suit, the plaintiffs had recovered a judgment against the defendant, for the same cause of action in the Court of Common Pleas,, for the County of Ross, in the State of Ohio. The plaintiffs joined issue on the first and second pleas,, and filed four replications to the third plea. The defendant joined issued on the third replication,, and demurred to the first, second and fourth replications.

In these replications the plaintiffs allege that the judgment relied on in the defendant’s pleas, is invalid, because a motion was filed by the defendant to set it aside, on the ground that he was not indebted to the plaintiffs, and also because he had not been served with process; and. that for the purpose of pleading the alleged judgment in bar in this suit, the defendant fraudulently consented to-have the said motion overruled. The question then presented by the demurrer, is, whether these facts are a sufficient answer to the defendant’s pleas ? Nowit is well settled that a judgment recovered against a defendant in another State, is a har to a suit brought upon the same cause of action in this State. Bank of U. S. vs. Merchants’ Bank, 7 Gill, 415 ; Whitehurst vs. Rogers, 38 Md, 503-515; 2 American Leading Cases, 617 . ⁷⁵ And when it is relied on as a plea in bar, the only question open for inquiry is, whether the Court in which the judgment was rendered had jurisdiction of the person or subject-matter.

See cases collated in 2 American Leading Ca ses, 617. The judgment is conclusive as to the merits of the controversy. 2 Smith’s Leading Cases, 679, 841; 2 American Leading Cases, 612 . The fact then, that the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment in the Court in which it was rendered, and the grounds on which the motion was based, are quite immaterial so long as the judgment stands between the parties. If the plaintiffs had a judgment against the-defendant in Ohio, for the same cause of action which they are prosecuting here, they certainly have no reason to complain, that the defendant agreed to have his motion to strike out the judgment overruled.

Be that as it may, the motion in no manner affects the validity of the judgment, and constitutes no sufficient answer to the defendant’s plea, and the demurrer was therefore properly sustained. The next question presented by the record is, whether-the judgment offered in evidence is a valid judgment against the defendant ? It does not appear from the face of the judgment that personal process was served upon the defendant, but it does appear that a written notice was left at his place of residence. It is essential, of course, to the validity of every judgment, that the parties to he hound should have notice of some kind, either, actual or constructive.

Every one is entitled to his day in Court, and to the right of being heard before a judgment of any kind is rendered against him. But it is not always necessary that personal process shall he served upon him. Each State has the right to prescribe by law how its citizens shall be brought into its Courts. ⁷⁶ And whatever conflict there may he in some of the earlier cases on the subject, we think it is now well settled, that if process he served upon the defendant, according to the laws of the State of which he is a