706 FEDERAL REPORTER. �of the jurisdiction, the decision would probably bar a retrial of the same question in another forum between the same parties. �I admit that the law on the power of a court to inquire into the jurisdiction of a foreign court over parties defendant is very unset- tled. This question and those of res judicata and estoppel have been considered or passed upon, severally or together, in 1 Kent, Comm. 261, 262, and notes ; Story, Confl. Laws, § 608, references and note; �1 Eob. Pr. 219; 6 Kob. Pr. 437; 7 Eob. Pr. 109; 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 1118-1146; 2 Smith, Lead -Cas. 828; Judge Moncure's opin- ion in Bowler y. Huston, 30 Gratt. 266 ; note to Shuman v. Stilhnan (from 6 Wend. 447) in 15 Am. Dec. 378 ; note to Pixley v. Winchell (i. Cow. 366) in 17 Am. Dec. 525; note io Messier v. Goddard (7 Yeates, 533) in 1 Am. Dec. 325; Bentonv. Burgot, 10 Serg. & E. at 241; B.OCCO v. Hackett, 2 Bosw. 579; Imrie v. Gastrique, 8 Com. B. (N. S.) 405; S. C. in error, L. E. 4 H. of. L. 414. �The act of congress of May 26, 1790, cil, (1 St. at Large, p.l22,) provides that the records and proceedings of the courts of the several states, properly authenticated, sball have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from whence the said records are taken. It was passed in pursuance of section 1 of article 4 of tha constitution of the United States. It not only provides that such records shall be received as evidence, but, if in the state "where judg- ment was rendered, it was evidence of the highest nature, namely, record evidence. This act of congress in declaring it to be the high- est evidence, declared the effect which the judgment was to have in all the courts of the United States. The principal federal authorities on this subject are Mills v. Duryea, 7 Cranch, 383-4; Hampton v. Me- Connell, 3 Wheat. 234; Knowles\. Gas-light d Coke Go. 19 Wall. 58; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. 453; Lafayette Ins. Co. y. French, 18 How. 404; Williamsony.Berry, 8 How. 496, 540; Glass v. Sloop Betsey, 3 Dal. 7; Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 24:1 ;• Elliott v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328; Schriver's Lessee v. Lynn, �2 How. 59; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437; Nations x. Johnson, 24 How. 195; Christmas v. Bussell, 5 Wall. 291, 305; Pennoyer v. Nef, 95 U. S. 714. And on the subject of service of process on a corporation ehartered in another sovereignty, see Railroad Go. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65; Railroad Go. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270; and Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369. ��� �
