1788.
mutual faith and credit fhall be given to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the States. But even if they were not, in this refpect, generally confidered as ƒoreign Judgments, the inconveniency and injuftice of receiving them as concluʃive evidence, when obtained by the procefs of a Foreign attachment, muft neceffarily create an exception. The prefent Judgment was obtained in a Foreign attachment, which is ftrictly a proceeding in rem. No defence was made, nor was any notice given to the Defendant, or to any perfon in his behalf ; but the mere attachment of a blanket, reputed to be his property, is the fole foundation upon which the jurifdiction of the Court, the moft inquitous and oppreffive confequences would enfue. A Judgment might be entered in Georgia, or New-Hampʅhire againft a citizen of this State, upon a fictitious and fraudulent claim, and it would be impoffible that he fhould obtain any redrefs, fince his firft knowledge of the fuit, would be the production of that record, into the juftice of which, it is contended, the Court cannot examine, but muft admit the Judgment it recites, as concluʃive evidence of the Plaintiff's demand. The Court will not conftrue the Articles of Confederation, fo as to introduce and tolerate an evil of fuch enormity ; and of which the prefent cafe would be a ftriking example.
Ingerʃoll, in reply.– The fubject before the Court is naturally divided into two points : 1ft, Whether a Judgment in a Sifter State, is of no other force in Pennʃylvania, than a Judgment in the Courts of England or Ireland? and 2dly, Whether there is any difference between Judgment in a Foreign attachment, and one obtained in any other fpecies of action?
1ft Upon the firʃt point, it is to be obferved, that although the rule is eftablifhed in Europe, that an action may be brought on a foreign Judgment, which is there received as prima ƒacie evidence of the debt, there is ftill this difference between foreign and domeʃtic records, that the former may be examined into, but the latter cannot be controverted or denied. Of this diftinction the authors of the Articles of Confederation muft have been perfectly apprized ; and, therefore, it is reafonable to prefume, that by introducing an exprefs provifion upon the fubject, they intended to place the States upon a different footing with refpect to each other, than with refpect to foreign nations : for, if they did not mean to make any alteration in the fyftem already eftablifhed, between independent and unconnected countries, they would either have been totally filent, or they would have qualified the terms of the article, fo as to have met their object fully and unequivocally. But, having premifed, that “the free inhabitants of each State fhall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the feveral States.” (so that, in fact a citizen of New-Hampʃhire the moment he enters South Carolina, derives from this fentence, a title to the privileges of citizenfhip in that Commonwealth alfo) the articles concludes, that “full faith and credit
