*1 relation of Robb, Ruth E. Robb of Missouri Jefferson State Hopkins Ewing Petitioners, C. Shain, B. Fred E. Judges Kemp, William E. Bland (2d) Appeals. Campbell John petitioners. *2 Kiegcr
Kiegcr Elynn <& and Edward J. for respondents. HYDE, seeking a proceeding quash C. This is in certiorari in the case of Day Edw. 139 S. Sons W. 533. Conflict the de- court, Utt, cision of this in Bonnet-Brown Sales Service Co. v. (2d) 888, 589, 19 claimed. eases, had upon judgment,
In both .the was an Illinois suit by provisions a warrant of been entered confession promissory both, contained in a the note authorized note. (for “irrevocably, appear” of Record to Court (“without the makers), and, process”) in favor' “confess may for (instrument) ap- of the holder of this note such amount as pear unpaid (due unpaid), attorney’s thereon” and and fees. (The court, herein said: “To for us in in term time vacation, hereafter;” time while the Bonnet-Brown note undersigned any court.”) said: “To for the there is no substantial difference in these *3 n Dollars, amount the One /100 expended, and by it herein aforesaid, well the costs as as confessed as ’’ therefor. that execution issue Appeals Court of was as follows: of the Bonnet-Brown case opinion the
"A careful examination of there however, the from which the us, that facts convinces the acquired jurisdiction of the court had not found Illinois that clearly distinguishable facts defendant, are from the person the of in that there is in at bar. It will be noted that case the case ... under- finding respect a recital with to who total of absence the took to on behalf of the defendant exercise to attorney. the warrant the terms of of discloses, slightest opinion was not . . . So far as there the the suggestion party purporting whether to in the record as to attorney an of court of record. Under such circum- was in fact stances, requiring showing compliance a the rule of strict attorney compel that terms of the warrant of would the conclusion of the therein rendered was void because of the failure any jurisdiction person that the court had of the record show think, bar, however, the defendant. In the under the case appellate State, authorities of the courts of this record suffi- ciently compliance discloses a strict with of the warrant in . . contained the note.here involved. . The record a in case valid rendered an Illinois court. A shows equally valid rendered in Illinois in valid Missouri Lacey (Walter v. National Corporation, Co. Finance given 1078), full faith and credit in this must State.” conflict claimed is follows: Appeals’ opinion ‘Harmon,’ “I. Said Court holds that who was relators, unknown appearance was authorized enter relator’s proceedings issue, the Illinois court virtue so-called ‘warrant, attorney,’ despite the fact that the record of said Illinois court in proceedings said does not show said Harmon to anbe of a court of Supreme record. The Court, case, in said Bonnet-Brown holds that showing absence foreign court, ‘warranty so-called attorney’ gives power, foreign no court is jurisdiction, without is void. . . .
“II. judg Said holds that valid ment equally rendered in Illinois is valid Missouri and must be holding directly faith and credit in this which in conflict this, the said Supreme Court, said (19 Brown case W. (2d) 891), l. c. holds in like that, circum stances, ‘the perfectly against any property of the defendant situated in that But, State. event, it is void and of no force or effect in this ” State.’ ground,
As to the first we think that the distinction between Clearly made is sound. awas failure of the record the Bonnet-Brown case to show any action, on the attorney, by any warrant of one do authorized to so. It does any attorney not show that acted for defendant under it any attorney because it neither names who acted nor even states that an Literally read, did act. him states self acted under it for himself. Defendants’ evidence showed was not true. If act, one else did does not show it. case, stated the attorney, name of acted for defendants under the warrant of attorney, and he recited that was “the authorized for the defendants.” This effect finding an he was of the court of record in which he *4 appeared. Because of this difference in judgments (which the two think substantial), ruling of the Court cannot be held to conflict of this Bonnet-Brown 0 case. Relator cites First National Bank White, 717, v. 220 Mo. 12 36, S. which this court cognovit provision such a public policy of this State and refused to en force it. a provision such is valid and enforceable under the law Illinois, as shown cited in Brown must, ease. We as held the First National Bank ease, give full faith and credit to a judgment, face, on its in this State. Crim, Crim v. 162 544, 489, 54 A. [See 502; L. R. Brown, Cook’s Estate v. 281, 346 Mo. 140 (2d) 42; Restatement of Laws, Conflict 81, sec. Mo. Annotations, p. 28, 46 Laws (U. Series Bulletin) of Mo. 26; 34 123-129, C. J. 317-330; secs. 31 Am. 329, Jur. sec. must, We therefore, hold this .that 817.] claimed ground of conflict cannot be sustained. ground As to the second of conflict, apparent (in part quoted hereinabove which is obiter dictum, because judg- in mind have bad it) the court must before bad no such situation A valid against property. rein ments in credit under course, given full faith and must, of personam warrant Valid United States Constitution. authorities see judgment are in class. to confess this [For Obviously basis of A. L. R. L. R. notes 40 A. 1503.] that a valid Bonnet-Brown case was not decision in Mis- denied full faith and credit personam could be therein, invalidity souri, purported but judgment against jurisdiction personal for lack of to enter a by de- defendant, appeared from the record and was substantiated following ruling, immediately proof. fendant’s as stated ground conflict) “in quotation (set out in relators’ second is that any event, it is void and of no force and effect rendered, Municipal Chicago, in which it reason that jurisdiction course, acquire did not over the defendant.’’ if Of that is true there was not and could not have been a valid personam in Illinois. certiorari cannot be sustained ground. on the second Bradley is ordered that our writ certiorai quashed.
Dalton, CG., concur.
PER foregoing C., Hyde, CURIAM: The adopted court. All as the judges concur. the relation of
State of W. Lane Wm. Missouri S. Bedal, Executors under the Will of Sarah G. Wilson, L. Henry Henry Cornell, Clifford Rott, W. J. Mueller, M. Crutsinger L. Neaf, John M. Walter E. compos Miller, ing Equalization the Board of St. County, Appellants. Louis (2d)W. notes (although payable involved: the Bonnet-Brown note Illinois) by executed in Missouri a citizen was of this State who was time never before the rendered in that Sagamon County, by the note Illinois, State. Here was executed in county (who Missouri) residents and State later and moved to county. was entered in the Circuit of that .-a The Court substantial difference judgments. was, on Bonnet-Brown note as follows: plaintiff cause; defendant, “Now comes the also comes the virtue of defendant’s warrant of files herein cognovit confessing against the action of the plaintiff plaintiff damages that the has sustained herein the de- fendant cognovit. the sum set forth in said “Whereupon plaintiff moves the court for final herein. therefore considered plaintiff that the have and recover of and from defendant, damages O. F. Utt, the plaintiff amounting Seventy-five sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($375.00) form confessed, together aforesaid with the costs plaintiff herein expended that execution issue therefor.” ivas: ease above June, D. comes the A. day of this 22nd "And now on E. Har- Robert Attorney, Flynn, by Edward J. plaintiff named upon comes, and also attorney for the defendants mon, docketed; herein this cause is plaintiff leave of court the, necessity waiving after defendants for said the defend- appearance of process, enters issuing and service of plaintiff, confesses herein, and with the assent ants of One and the sum plaintiff (are) indebted to said defendants agrees that Dollars, and 91/100 of this suit. amount and the costs for that be entered due and amount of note "Proof of execution having open Court. been made adjudged the Court considered "It is therefore the sum of defendant of and from the plaintiff have and recover