Hampton v. M'connel

In Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481. the following points were adjudged: 1st That the act of 1790, ch. 38, prescribing the mode in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, in each state, shall be so authenticated as to take effect rn every other state, declaring that the record of a judgment duly authenticated shall have such faith and *236 credit as it has in' the state court from whence it was taken; if in such court it has the. effect of record evidence, it must have the same effect in every other court within the United States. 2d. That in every case arising ynder the act, the only inquiry is,what is. the effect of the judgment in t.he state where it was rendered. 3d. That whatever might be the effect of a plea of nil deb'et to an action on a state judgment, after verdict, it could not be sustained on demurrer. 4th. That on such a plea the original record need sot be produced for inspection, but thát an exemplification thereof is sufficient. 5th. That the act applies to the courts of the-district of Colombia, and to every -other court within the United States.

In the argument of Bordon v Fitch, 15. Johns. Rep, 121. in the supreme court 'of Nevr York, it sce.ms to have been supposed that this court had decided in Mills v. Duryee, that nul tiel record was the only proper plea to.an action upon a state judgment. But it is. conceived that as to the pleadings, it only decided that nil debet tfas not a proper plea; and that the court would hold that any plea (as well as nul tiel record) that would avoid the judgment, if technically pleaded, would, be good. However this may be,- it "may safely be affirmed, that the question is still open in this court whether a special plea of fraud might not be pleaded, or a plea to the jurisdiction of the court in which the judgment was obtained; for these might, in' some cases, be pleaded in the state court to avoid the judgment.