are still deemed foreign to the mother country, and, of course, their judgments were deemed foreign judgments within the scope of the foregoing rule.[1] It followed, that the judgments of one colony were deemed re-examinable in another, not only as to the jurisdiction of the court, which pronounced them; but also as to the merits of the controversy, to the extent, in which they were then understood to be re-examinable in England. In some of the colonies, however, laws had been passed, which put judgments in the neighbouring colonies upon a like footing with domestic judgments, as to their conclusiveness, when the court possessed jurisdiction.[2] The reasonable construction of the article of the confederation on this subject is, that it was intended to give the same conclusive effect to judgments of all the states, so as to promote uniformity, as well as certainty, in the rule among them. It is probable, that it did not invariably, and perhaps not generally, receive such a construction; and the amendment in the constitution was, without question, designed to cure the defects in the existing provision.[3]
§ 1302. The clause of the constitution propounds three distinct objects; first, to declare, that full faith and credit shall be given to the records, 8cc. of every other state; secondly, to prescribe the manner of authenticating them; and thirdly, to prescribe their effect, when so- ↑ Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. R. 515, 543.
- ↑ This was done in Massachusetts by the Provincial act of 14 Geo. 3, ch. 2, as to judgments of the courts of the neighbouring colonies. See Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass, R. 462, 465; Ancient Colony and Province Laws, [ed. 1814,] p. 684.
- ↑ See Kibbe v. Kibbe, 1766, Kirby R. 110; James v. Allen, 1786, 1 Ball. R. 188; Phelps v. Holker, 1788, 1 Dall. R. 261; 3 Jour. of Cong. 12 Nov. 1777, p. 493; S. C. 1 Secret Journal, p. 366; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine's R. 460, 478, 479.
vol. iii.23
