pense with any part of the authentication required by act of congress, but it cannot require a different authentication.2 A foreign judgment may be proved by an exemplification of the judgment under the great seal of the foreign country, or by a copy which has been proved to be a true copy, or by a copy under the certificate of an authorized officer which has been itself properly authenticated, or where such proof is not attainable by any other competent evidence.3 X. PLEADING JUDGMENTS.-In pleading a judgment of a domestic court of record, the jurisdiction of the court to render the judgment need not be alleged. It seems to be the better opinion that the same rule applies to pleading a judgment of a court of record of another State.5 In pleading a foreign judgment, however, the jurisdiction of the court must be alleged. Except by the judge of the court which rendered the judgment. Phelps v. Tilton, 17 Ind. 423; Brown v. Johnson, 42 Ala. 208. One who is both judge and clerk of a court must certify a record in both capacities. Duval . Ellis, 13 Mo. 203; Bissell . Edwards, 5 Day (Conn.) 363; s. c., 5 Am. Dec. 166; Catlin v. Underhill, 4 McLean (U. S.) 199. See ArTHENTICATION, vol. 1, p. 1023; ExEMPLIFICATION, vol. 7, p. 479. 1. Van Storch 7. Griffin, 71 Pa. St. 240; Stewart v. Gray, Hemp. (U. S.) 94. 2. McAllister 7. Singer Mfg. Co., 64 Ga. 622. The copy should be complete. Pepin v. Lachenmeyer, 45 N. Y. 27; 1 Whart. Ev., § 824. A transcript of a judgment of a sister State, when properly certified under the act of congress, is admissible in evidence in an action upon such judgment, although it shows no placita. McMillan v. Lovejoy, 115 Ill. 498. The record of a judgment of an inferior court of another State, not showing the pleadings or nature of the cause of action, is not admissible in evidence in a suit upon the judgment. Brown v. Eaton, 98 Ind. 591. The record of the probate of a will 3. Kingman v. Cowles, 103 Mass. 283. A copy of a foreign decree simply certified by signing the name as "Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs" with a private seal annexed, was held inadmissible in evidence. Church . Hubbart, 2 Cranch (U. S.) 187. It was held that the affidavit of one who assisted the clerk of a foreign court in comparing the copy and saw him attest it was a sufficient verification of the judgment. Buttrick v. Allen, 8 Mass. 273; s. c., 5 Am. Dec. 105. 4. Bruckman 7. Taussig. 7 Col. 561; Spaulding v. Baldwin, 31 Ind. 376; Holmes . Campbell, 12 Minn. 221; Springsteene v. Gillett, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 260; Rogers v. Odell, 39 N. II. 452; Judge . Fillmore, 1 Chip. (Vt.) 423; Lathrop . Stuart, 5 McLean (U. S.) 167; Pennington . Gibson, 16 How. (U. S.) 65. But see Downer v. Dana, 22 Vt. 337: Caldwell v. Richards, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 331; Burnes . Simpson, 9 Kan. 663. 5. Gunn 7. Howell, 27 Ala. 663; s. c., 62 Am. Dec. 785; Meredith 7. Santa Clara Mining Assoc., 56 Cal. 178; Bruckman . Taussig, 7 Col. 561; Butcher . Bank, 2 Kan. 70; s. c., 83 Am. Dec. 446: Williams 7. Preston, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 600; Bissell v. Wheelock, II Cush. (Mass.) 277: Stephens . Roby, 27 Miss. 744; Halstead v. Black, 17 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 227; Reid v. Boyd, 13 Tex. 241. Compare Ashly v. Laird, 14 Ind. 222; Gebhard . Garnier, 12 Bush (Ky.) 321; s. c., 23 Am. Rep. 721; Karns v. Kunkle, 2 Minn. 313. '. 6. Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 675: Frayes 7. Worms, to C. B., N. S. 149; Plummer . Woodburne, 4 B. & C. 625; Douglass v. Forrest, 4 Bing. 686. Compare Robertson v. Struth, 5 Q. B. 941; Bruckman 7. Taussig, 7 Col. 561; Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177. where the rule has been changed by statute,1 the facts conferring jurisdiction upon a court not of record must be alleged in pleading its judgment.2 A plea to the jurisdiction of a court of gen 1. By statute in most of the States, jurisdictional facts need not be pleaded. See 27 Am. Dec. 148, note. Richardson v. Hickman, 22 Ind. 244; Hunt v. Dutcher, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 538. Under these statutes it is sufficient to say that the judgment was "duly given or made." Hanscom v. Tower, 17 Cal. 518; Beans v. Emanuelli, 36 Cal. 117; Crake v. Crake, 18 Ind. 156; Keys v. Grannis, 3 Nev. 548; Wheeler v. Dakin, 12 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 537. But where there is no such equivalent alle gation, the jurisdictional facts must be pleaded. Himmelman v. Danos, 35 Cal. 441; Crake v. Crake, 18 Ind. 156. Such statutes are applicable to judgments of courts of sister States. Crake v. Crake, 18 Ind. 156; Toledo etc. R. v. McNulty, 34 Ind. 531. Compare Karns v. Kunkle, 2 Minn. 313; Hollister v. Hollister, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 539. But not to foreign judgments. McLaughlin. Nichols, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 244; Hollister v. Hollister, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 539 In an action on a justices' judgment, it is sufficient to state that summons was duly issued and served without further details. Barnes v. Harris, 4 N. Y. 375. A plea that certain premises were "duly sold" for nonpayment of a tax "duly imposed" is deficient in not stating by whom the tax was imposed. Carter v. Koezley, 14 Abb. Pr. (Ñ. Y.) 147; s. c., 9 Bosw. 583. For an averment held equivalent to that provided by statute, see Willis v. Havemeyer, 5 Duer (N. Y.) 447. For one held insufficient, see Hunt v. Dutcher, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 538. 2. Bridge . Ford, 4 Mass. 649; Turner v. Roby, 3 N. Y. 193; Barnes v. Harris, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 35; People v. Koeber, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 39; Lawton v. Erwin, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 233; Draggoo v. Graham, 9 Ind. 212. It is not sufficient to aver jurisdiction generally. Cleveland v. Rogers, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 438; Nicholl v. Mason, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 339; Barnes v. Harris, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; s. c., 4 N. Y. 375. Courts will take judicial notice of a public statute conferring jurisdiction upon inferior tribunals, and jurisdiction need not be alleged where the amount and nature of the cause of action show it to be within the jurisdiction of the court which pronounced the judgment. Stiles v. Stewart, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 473; s. c., 27 Am. Dec. 142; Masterson v. Matthews, 60 Ala. 260. In the absence of contrary statutory provisions, the statute giving jurisdiction and the jurisdictional facts must be averred in declaring on a judgment of a justice of the peace in another State. Sheldon v. Hopkins, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 435; Thomas v. Robinson, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 267; Grant v. Blesdoe, 20 Tex. 456; Hofheimer v. Losen, 24 Mo. App. 652. It must be alleged that process was duly sued out and served upon defendant or that he appeared in the action. Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 35; Nicholl v. Mason, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 339; Turner v. Roby, 3 N. Y. 193. Where on nonsuit or otherwise judgment is rendered in favor of defendant for costs, in a suit on the judgment the facts conferring jurisdiction need not be averred. Turner v. Roby, 3 N. Y. 193. According to the older authorities not only the jurisdictional facts, but all proceedings prior to the rendition of judgment, must have been set forth in pleading a judgment of an inferior court. Makareth v. Pollard, 1 Ld. Raym. 80; Pinager v. Gale, 2 Vent. 100. But by the modern rule it is sufficient after pleading the jurisdictional facts to summarize the steps before judgment under a general averment of "taliter processum fuit, with a statement that judgment was recovered. Barnes v. Harris, 4 N. Y. 375; Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 37. After verdict the want of allegations of jurisdictional facts will be deemed cured. Bull v. Steward, 1 Wils. 255; Bentley v. Donnelly, 8 T. R. 127. See also Graff v. Griswold, I Den. (N. Y.) 432. According to the better opinion there is no distinction in respect to jurisdictional facts between the method of pleading a judgment of an inferior court in a declaration and that required in setting it up as a defence to an action. Turner v. Roby, 3 N. Y. 193; Barnes v. Harris, 3 Barb. 603; s. c., 4 N. Y. 375; Lawton eral jurisdiction must allege the facts showing that the court did not have jurisdiction with certainty in every particular.1 As a general rule, judgments should be described with certainty and particularity.2 Nul tiel record is the proper plea where the defendant denies the existence of the judgment or desires to take advantage of a variance between the judgment rendered and that described in v. Erwin, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 233; Cornell v. Barnes, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 35. Compare Nicholl v. Mason, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 339. The rule applies to an action on a recognizance taken by a justice. Bridge v. Ford, 4 Mass. 649; People v. Koeber, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 39. 1. Diblee v. Davison, 25 Ill. 486. 2. Lawrence v. Willoughby, 1 Minn. 87; Whitaker v. Bramson, 2 Paine (U. S.) 209. But it has become the settled practice in declaring upon a judgment to allege generally that the plaintiff by the consideration and judgment of the court recovered the sum mentioned therein, and not as formerly to set out the whole of the proceedings." Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 672; Biddle 7. Wilkins, Pet. (U. S.) 686. See also Hansford v. Van Auken, 79 Ind. 157. In pleading or replying a judgment as an estoppel more minuteness must be observed than in declaring upon it. It must appear that precisely the same question was decided in the former action and that the decision was upon the merits. Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 672; Gilbreath 7. Jones, 66 Ala. 129; Krutsinger v. Brown, 72 Ind. 446; Temple v. Williams, 91 N. Car. 82; Fowlkes 7. State, 14 Lea (Tenn.) 14. This exactness may be escaped by pleading the general issue, when the judgment would be admissible in evidence under it. See Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 672. For a sufficient plea of former judgment see Langmead v. Maple, 18 Č. B., N. S. 255; Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 674. When a judgment is set up to establish some collateral fact, it must be pleaded more strictly than is necessary when it is pleaded in bar of the action. Aurora v. West, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 82; Perkins v. Walker, 19 Vt. 144. "In describing a judgment, the court in which it was rendered, the place where the court was held, the names of the parties, the date or term at which it was entered, and the sum recovered must be shown." Freeman on Judg. 12 C. of L.-10*3 7 (3rd ed.), § 456; Packard v. Hill, Cow. (N. Y.) 434; Duyckcinck v. Clinton Ins. Co., 3 Zabr. (N. J.) 279. It is sufficient to state that the amount of the judgment is unpaid. Blake . Burley, 9 Iowa 592. Demand.-Demand for payment need not be alleged. Masterson . Matthews, 60 Ala. 260; Moss v. Shannon, I Hill (N. Y.) 175; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. (U. S.) 65. Administrator. An administrator suing upon a judgment in his favor need not describe himself as such. Biddle v. Wilkins, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 692; Talmage v. Chapel, 16 Mass. 71; Hansford v. Van Auken, 79 Ind. 157. Stockholder.-In suing a stockholder on a judgment against the corporation the original liability need not be described. Miller v. White, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 504. Where an officer, sued for levying upon and selling exempt property, desires to justify by showing that the judgment was for purchase money, he must aver the character of the judgment in his answer. Dennis v. Snell, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 411. Variance.-In an action to recover the balance due upon a foreign judgment, the declaration averred the recovery of judgment for a certain sum "and also the sum of $42.60 adjudged to said plaintiff," etc. The judgment record, introduced in evidence, showed a judgment for the sum named, "besides his costs and charges herein expended," and elsewhere showed that they had been fixed at the sum stated in the declaration. It was held that there was no fatal variance; and though it was not shown how the costs were taxed, the proceedings fixing their amount could not be presumed illegal. Hunt v. Middlesworth, 44 Mich. 448. In an action against a corporation, sued by the name of the Montgomery & Mobile Railway Company, on a judgment against the Montgomery & Mobile Railroad, parol evidence was admitted to show the identity of the 149h the declaration.1 Matters in discharge of the judgment must be specially pleaded.2 Nil debet is a good plea to an action on a foreign judgment.3 Nul tiel record is not a proper plea to an action on a judgment of a court not of record.4 A judgment is admissible in evidence as a former recovery under the general issue in assumpsit, trover and actions on the case, but not in trespass and covenant;5 nor under the code procedure.6 In an action on a judgment of another State, it may be two corporations. Mobile etc. R. Co. 7. Yeates, 67 Ala. 164. And generally, in an action upon a judgment, an averment in the complaint that the judgment was rendered against the defendant by another name is sufficient to show that he is bound by the judgment. Bloomfield R. Co. v. Burress, 82 Ind. 83. For illustration of variances see Central Bank v. Veasey, 14 Ark. 672; Howell v. Shands, 35 Ga. 66; Duncommon v. Hysinger, 14 Ill. 249; Smith v. Smith, 17 Ill. 482; Howard v. Cousins, 7 How. (Miss.) 114; Barringer v. Boyd, 27 Miss. 473; Gulick v. Loder, 2 Green (N. J.) 572; s. c., 23 Am. Dec. 711; Dielrich's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 174; Ferrance's Appeal, 107 Pa. St. 180; Billing v. Hitchings, 18 L. J. Rep. (U. S.) Ex. 192; Cocks v. Brewer, 11 M. & W. 51. 1. Crawford v. Simonton, 7 Port. (Ala.) 110; Jacquette v. Hugunon, 2 McLean (U. S.) 129; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean (U. S.) 473. The plaintiff must produce a judgment that does not appear to be satisfied. Blair v. Caldwell, 3 Mo. 353. Under the plea of nul tiel record, the plaintiff cannot show aliunde that the parties or cause of action are different in the two suits. State Bank v. Arnold, 7 Eng. (Ark.) 180. The plaintiff cannot recover, if it appears, upon the production of the record, that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, or the subject matter of the suit. Thompson v. Emmert, 4 McLean (U. S.) 96; Bergen v. Williams, 4 McLean (U. S.) 125; Clark . Melton, 19 S. Car. 498. 2. Stephens v. Roby, 27 Miss. 744; Tunstall v. Robinson, Hemp. (U. S.) 229. 3. Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 671; 1 Chit. Pl. 485. Judgments of justices of the peace are not records generally. Green . Fry, 1 Cranch C. C. (U. Š.) 137. Compare Bain v. Hunt, 3 Hawks (N. Car.) 572. 5. Freeman on Judg. (3rd ed.), § 458; Whiting v. Burger, 78 Me. 287; Warren v. Comings, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 103; Reynolds . Stansbury, 20 Ohio 344; Miller v. Maurice, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 114; Coles v. Carter, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 691; Marsh v. Pier, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 273; s. c., 26 Am. Dec. 131; Mason v. Eldred, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 231. "In those cases in which a plaintiff has by judgment established his right of action for a recurring liability, he should declare as upon a new cause, leaving the judgment to be used in evidence to establish his general right." Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 675; Smith v. Elliott, 9 Pa. St. 345. 6. Piercy v. Sabin, 10 Cal. 22; Ransom . Stanberry, 22 Iowa 334; Brady v. Murphy, 19 Ind. 258; Wood Ostram, 29 Ind. 177; Hendricks 7. Decker, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 298; Burlington etc. R. Co. v. Harris, 8 Neb. 140; Hanson v. Chiatovich, 13 Nev. 395; Fanning v. Insurance Co., 37 Ohio St. 344. Plea of Former Recovery.-"A plea of former recovery should show that some question involved in the former judgment is identical with some issue in the present action (Hopkinson v. Shelton, 37 Ala. 306; Lockwood v. Wildman, 13 Ohio 450; Heatherly 7. Hadly, 2 Oreg. 269; Johnson v. White, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 584); that the former action and the present were between the same parties or their privies. Greely v. Smith, 1 W. & M. (U. S.) 181. And, in case the parties are not nominally the same, facts showing their privity with the parties to the present action must be stated." Greely v. Smith, I W. & M. (U. S.) 181; Goddard v. Benson, 15 Abb. Pr. 191; Freeman on Judg. 4. The decrees of courts of chancery are not records and nul tiel record is not a proper plea thereto. Evans v. Tatem, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 252; s. c., 11 Am. (3rd ed.), § 460. Dec. 717. In ejectment the plea should show shown under the general issue that the court did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment.1 If an estoppel by record appear plainly in a pleading the nature of which is opposed to the estoppel, the opposite party may demur instead of setting up the estoppel.2 The judgments of courts of sister States must be treated as domestic records in pleadings.3 XI. ACTIONS ON JUDGMENTS.-An action may be maintained upon a final judgment of the court in which the action is brought, although (by the weight of authority) the time has not expired in which execution may issue to enforce the judgment,6 that the parties, land and the title in issue in the two actions are the same. Vance v. Olinger, 27 Cal. 358. As to second action for personal property, see Eversole v. Plank, 17 Ohio 61. Ordinarily a judgment must be pleaded when there is an opportunity to do so and it is relied on as a bar. Briggs v. Milburn, 40 Mich. 512; Murray v. Murray, 6 Oreg. 26. But when properly admitted in evidence it is as conclusive when not pleaded as when pleaded. Gowan v. Graydon, 41 Ind. 559. See RES JUDICATA. 1. Foster v. Glazener, 27 Ala. 391; Stephens v. Gaylord, II Mass. 266; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; s. c., 6 Am. Dec. 88; Crone v. Dawson, 19 Mo. App. 214. 2. Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 676; Greenup v. Carnegie, 50 Ind. 410. Where the transcript of a judgment need not be filed with the complaint, and if filed is no part of the record, it will not be considered upon demurrer to the complaint, even if it shows that the court which rendered the judgment had no jurisdiction. Conwell v. Conwell, 100 Ind. 437. 3. Garland v. Tucker, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 361; Davis v. Lane, 2 Cart. (Ind.) 548; McKim v. Odom, 3 Fairf. (Me.) 94; Andrews. Montgomery, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 162; s. c., 10 Am. Dec. 213; Evans v. Tatem, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 252; India Rubber Factory v. Hoit, 14 Vt. 92; Mills . Duryea, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 481. It is not necessary to allege or prove that a judgment of a sister State was warranted by the law of such State. Miller v. Leach, 95 N. Car. 229. Pleas in bar of actions on judgments of courts of sister States must clearly deny the facts which go to show jurisdiction. Latterett v. Cook, 1 Iowa 1; Shumway. Stillman, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 292; s. c., 15 Am. Dec. 374; Moulin v. Insurance Co., 4 Zabr. (N. J.) 222. A plea alleging non-residence where the judgment was rendered and no notice of the action, is insufficient; it should allege that the defendant did not appear by attorney or in person. Foster v. Glazener, 27 Ala. 391; Struble v. Malone, 3 Clarke (Iowa) 586; Starbuck 7. Murray, 5 Wend. 143; s. C., 21 Am. Dec. 172. For replications to pleas denying jurisdiction, see Long . Long, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 597; Buchanan v. Port, 5 Ind. 264. Precedents. For forms of pleading, see Big. on Estop. (4th ed.) 671, 693, et seq.. 4. Ledyard v. Brown, 39 Tex. 402. Action may be maintained against a putative father for weekly instalments which he has been ordered to pay for the child's support without showing that the child is still alive. Stokes v. Sanborn, 45 N. H. 274. The mandate of the United States supreme court directing the lower court to reverse a verdict and judgment for plaintiff and enter judgment for defendant's costs, is not such a judgment as will support an action in another State. Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Francis, 43 Hun (N. Y.) 621. 5. Hansford v. Van Auken, 79 Ind. 157. 6. Kingsland v. Forrest, 18 Ala. 519; Palmer v. Glover, 73 Ind. 529; Ames v. Hoy, 12 Cal. 11; Ives v. Finch, 28 Conn. 112; Clark v. Goodwin, 14 Mass. 237; Hale v. Angel, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 342; White River Bank . Downer, 29 Vt. 332; Simpson v. Cochran, 23 Iowa S1; Albin v. People, 46 Ill. 372; Burnes v. Simpson, '9 Kan. 663; Hummer v. Lamphear, 32 Kan. 439; s. c., 49 Am. Rep. 491; Stewart v. Peterson, 63 Pa. St. 230; Gardner v. Henry, 5 Coldw. |