MOCH V. VIRGIKIi FIKE & MARIXE INS. CO. T05 �In Douglas v. Forest, 4 Bing. 686, the court of common pleas held that an action may be maintained in England, upon a Scotch, judg- ment, recovered upon a debt contracted in Scotland by a native of that eountry, thoagh the defendant was abroad when the cause of action accrued, though no process was served upon him, and though he never knew of the existence of the action. The laws of Scotland allowed such a suit as that in which the Scotch judgment was ren- dered. �In Banh of Australia v. Ma», 16 Ad. & Eli. 717, it appeared that the statuts of a British colony authorized suits against members of a corporation individually for liabilities of the corporation collect- ively, in a manner unknown to the laws of England, and seemingly repugnant to natural justice. But in an action in England, brought on a foreign judgment against one corporator, founded on such a liability, it was held that a plea setting out such a fact is insuffi- cient. �In Becquet v. McCarthy's Ex'r, 2 Barn. & Ad. 951, it appeared that the statute law of a British colony authorized that in suits against absent parties to contracts made in the colony, process might be served on the attorney general of the colony. In a suit in England upon a colonial judgment obtained after such service of process, it was held that such a law did not render void the judgment. �In Godard v. Gmy, L. K. 6 Q. B. 139, decided in 1870, where the contract sued upon abroad was made in England, and the foreign judgment obtained upon it was rendered on a misconstruction of the contract; yet, in a suit in England upon this judgment, the court held that the facts could not be gone into. See, also, Schibsby v. Westen- holz, L. K. 6 Q. B. 155. �The defendants in these several cases were held to be estopped by the judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction abroad. �The whole subject of foreign judgments in personam, in their rela- tion to the question of estoppel, bas been so fully discussed in Bige- low on Estoppel that I need not do more than refer to the many cases cited below and in that work. The author concludes his review of the subject by the remark that although parties to a foreign judgment are not ordinarily estopped to deny the jurisdiction of a foreign court, yet if, in any case, there had been an issue made in the foreign suit between the parties, on this particular point, (as was donc in Louisiana between the parties to this suit,) and this issue was decided in favor v.l0,no.7— 45 ��� �
