. 44 ` IPEDERAI. 1u=:1*01z1*m1t{
‘ which the law implies in support of the judgment of a court of general
jurisdiction, is confined to facts concerning which the record is silent,
and limited to the case of persons within their territorial jurisdiction in ,
a proceeding according to the course of the common law.
In Pemzoycr v. Nqf, 95 U. S. 732, Mr Justice FIELD, speaking of judg-
ments in personam in state courts where the defendants had not been per-
sonally servedwith process, or, voluntarily appeared, said:
"The courts ofthe United States are not required to give effect to judg-
ments of this character when any right is claimed under them. Whilst they
are not foreign tribunals in their relations to the state courts, they are tribu-
nals of a different sovereignty, exercising a distinct and independent jurisdic-
tion, andare bound to give to the judgments of -the state courts only the same
· faith and credit which the courts of another state are bound to give to them."
This seems to be decisive of the question.
In none of these cases, nor any other to which my attention has been
attracted, is it said or even suggested that the judgment of a state court
cannot be questioned or attacked collaterally, either for want of jurisdic-
tion of the subject-matter or notice of the proceeding to the defendant in
a national court sitting in the same state.
The case of Owens v. Gotzian, 4 Dill. 436, is an apparent, and may be
a partial, exception to this statement.
In an action in the United States circuit court for the district of Min-
· nesota, a judgment of a court of the state was given in evidence to defeat
the same. The plaintiff then offered to prove that the summons in that
case was served by a silent partner of the plaintiffs therein, contrary to
the statute, which forbid "a party to the action” to make such service,
claiming that this fact made the service invalid, and the j udgment thereon
void. j U
The court (Nsnsou, J.) assumed on the authority of Thomstm v. Lee,
22 Iowa, 206, that the judgment of the state court should be regarded
as a domestic judgment in that tribunal, but admits that even then "it
may be shown void on its face if the court rendering it had no jurisdic-
tion of the defendants person;" and added: "It is equally true that ex- ‘
cept for errors aliecting the jurisdiction of the court its validity cannot
~ be questioned."
‘ But this is all that is sought to be done in this case, or that is claimed
can be done, even if the decree of the state court is not considered a do-
mestic one. ·
The court also held that the alleged defect in the service of the sum-
mons was at most only an irregularity, which did not affect the jurisdic-
tion of the icourtg and finally, that as the alleged silent partner was not
named in the proceedings, he was not "a party to the action " within the
meaning of the statute, and therefore the service was not only sufficient,
but regular. . ~
Assuming, however, that the service, as shown by the record in this t
case, is invalid, as in my judgment it is, the validity of this decree, ac-
cording to the ruling in Odell v. Campbell, 9 Or. 298, may be questioned,
even in thestate courts. . »