Miller v. . Leach
95 N.C. 229
N.C.
1886
Check Treatment
Ashe, J.

(аfter stating the facts). The only question presented by this appeal, is whether there was error in the judgment of the Superior Court, in holding that ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍the judgment rendered in South Carolina does not survive the defendant therein, Angus Leach,, and cannot be enforced against his executrix in this State.

The аction is upon a judgment rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction in South Carolina. It is regularly authenticatеd under the Act of Congress; and by Article IV, §1, of the Constitution of thе United States, it ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍is declared that “full faith and credit shall be given in each State, to the public acts,, records аnd judicial proceedings of every other State.” By virtue of this provision of the Constitution, and the Act of 1790,. *231 prescribing how records, etc., are to be authenticated, the judgments of the several States are put upon the same footing with domestic judgments, not for all purposеs, but only ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍to give a general validity, faith and credit to them as evidence, so as to make them conclusive, only so far as to preclude all inquiry into the merits of the subjеct matter. Mills v. Dunyear, 7 Cranch., 481; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; but leaving the questions of jurisdiction, fraud in the prоcurement, and whether the parties were properly brought before the Court, open to objection, 1 Greenleaf on Ev., §548; Freeman on Judgments, §548 ; 2 Taylor on Evidence, §1533; and it is held by the same author, §1534 “ that the Courts of this country will sо far presume that a for-eigu tribunal has acted within the limits оf its ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍authority, and that its proceedings are regular, that if an action be brought upon a foreign judgment, the plaintiff need not allege in his declaration either that the foreign Court had jurisdiction over the parties or the cаuse, or that the proceedings have been prоperly conducted.” * * * The only exception to this is when such a judgment is pleaded by way of estoppel оr justification.”

The principle here laid down is fully sustained ‍‌​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌​‍by this Cоurt in the case of Davidson v. Sharpe, 6 Ired., 14, where it is held, that “when a judgment or deсree in another State is produced in evidence in one of our Courts, it is not necessary to show by any extrinsic evidence, that the judgment or decree was warranted by the law of the State in which it was pronounced. The judgment or decree is the highest evidence of that fаct.” The same doctrine is held in most of the States. 1 Am. Lead. Cas., p. 647, and authorities there cited.

As to the question of survivorship, it has been established from the earliest history of the law, that as to all personal claims, such as are founded upon any obligation, contract, debt or other duty, upon which a testator might have been sued in his lifеtime, the right of action survives his death, and is enforceаble against his executors. 2 Williams on Executors, §1557.

The aсtion was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Code, §152.

*232 There is error, and this opinion most be certified to the Superior Court of Richmond county, that a venire de novo may be awarded.

Error. Reversed.