| Mass. | Oct 22, 1888
The question of the validity of a judgment rendered by a court of this State against a defendant who was not a resident of the State, and who was not served personally with process within the State, was considered in Eliot v. McCormick, 144 Mass. 10" court="Mass." date_filed="1887-02-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/eliot-v-mccormick-6422357?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6422357">144 Mass. 10. In that case this court, following the decisions in the Supreme Court of the United States, held that such judgment contravened the fourteenth article of the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and was invalid, and would be reversed upon a writ of error.
The case at bar presents the question, whether, in a suit in this State upon such a judgment, the defendant may show by plea and proof that it is invalid. The recent cases in the Supreme Court of the United States go upon the ground, that a judgment in personam against a person who is not a resident of
The case of McCormick v. Fiske, 138 Mass. 379" court="Mass." date_filed="1885-01-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mccormick-v-fiske-6421521?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6421521">138 Mass. 379, seems opposed to our views. But in that case the question of the effect of the fourteenth article of Amendment was not raised or suggested to the court, and therefore was not considered. In the case at bar, the effect of that amendment is involved. The defendant’s answer sets up that, at the time when the original suit was brought against him, he was a non-resident, and that no service was made upon him. We are of the opinion that he had the right to impeach the judgment by proof of these facts, and that the ruling rejecting such evidence was erroneous.
Exceptions sustained.