§ 1478. Evidence

A plaintiff, suing in equity, to show invalidity of a judgment for want of jurisdiction, must show a meritorious defense.38 Relief based on extrinsic evidence may be had against a judgment rendered without service of process.89

Where parties by sufficient pleading assail a judgment for want of jurisdiction, because of fraud practiced by prevailing party, parol evidence is admissible to support such pleading, whether such an attack be denominated direct or collateral.40

A party against whom a judgment has been rendered in his absence, seeking to be relieved therefrom upon the ground of "fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment," must

defense to the action, as required by the section last named. Mosely v. Southern Manuf'g Co., 46 P. 508, 4 Okl. 492.

An averment in a petition that a certain third party executed to defendants a note and mortgage; that they were without consideration; that the transaction was for the purpose of defrauding creditors; that afterwards the land described in the petition was sold to plaintiffs, and possession thereof given; that the sum of $1,700 was taken from the plaintiffs for payment therefor; and that a judgment was afterwards rendered upon the said note, and the property and possession of plaintiffs taken under execution therefrom -alleges with sufficient definiteness facts which constitute fraud sufficient to authorize the issuance of an injunction restraining a sale under said execution. Tibbits v. Miller, 60 P. 95, 9 Okl. 677.

A petition to vacate a judgment for fraud must be verified and set forth the judgment, the facts constituting the fraud, and fully state the facts constituting the defense. A petition to vacate a judgment for fraud which sets up only a general denial by way of defense, and does not state the facts constituting the fraud is fatally defective. Thompson v. Caddo County Bank, 82 P. 927, 15 Okl. 615.

In an action to set aside a judgment for fraud, in procuring the same, where the petition alleges that it was obtained on a chose in action which the party obtaining it did not own at the time, and which had been reduced to judg ment by a third party, and that the petition on which the alleged fraudulent judgment was entered set out that such third party claimed some interest therein, and prayed that he be impleaded, that the right of all parties might be adjudicated, which petition was verified, the petition did not state a cause of action; it appearing that plaintiff had notice of such facts as would put an ordinary person on inquiry, which would have disclosed the defense, if any, the defendant in such action had. City of Guthrie v. McKennon, 91 P. 851, 19 Okl. 306.

38 Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okl. 277, 190 P. 681.

39 Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okl. 277, 190 P. 681. 40 Griffin v. Culp (Okl.) 174 P. 495.

not only make satisfactory proof of fraud in fact, but should also show that he was himself guilty of no laches in failing to appear at the trial."1

§ 1479. Recognition-In general

Giving to the proceedings of a sister state the same faith and credit that are given to like proceedings by the courts of such sister state is a compliance with the provisions of the federal constitution and the act of congress requiring each state to give full faith and credit to the judgments and judicial proceedings of the sister state.42

§ 1480. Jurisdiction

Foreign courts of general jurisdiction will be presumed to have the authority they assume to exercise, though such authority differs from that under the state laws.48

41 Ohio & W. Mortgage & Trust Co. v. Carter (Kan.) 58 P. 1040, 9 Kan. App 621

42 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Campbell, 49 P. 321, 5 Kan. App. 423. 43 Robinson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 150 P. 636, 96 Kan. 137.

It will be presumed, in favor of a foreign judgment, that a court of general jurisdiction had the authority it assumed to exercise. Westervelt v. Jones, 47 P. 322, 5 Kan. App. 35.

A judgment rendered and entered in another state in accordance with the laws of such state, may be valid and enforceable in Kansas, although a judgment rendered and entered in the same manner and form and under like circumstances in Kansas would be void. Ritter v. Hoffman, 10 P. 576, 35 Kan. 215.

An answer challenging the action of the probate court in appointing an administrator of the estate of a resident of that state on the ground that deceased did not have any property at time of her death was a collateral at

A judgment by confession in another state, entered on a note made there, is valid, notwithstanding the maker's removal from the state.14

A judgment rendered in a foreign country without jurisdiction oi the person of the defendant may be attacked in either a direct or collateral proceeding in which the validity of the judgment is ques tioned.45

A contention that a foreign judgment is void for want of juristack on judgment of another court, to which demurrer was properly sustained. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Forrester (Okl.) 177 P. 593, 8 A. L. R. 163. A judgment of a justice of the peace of another state may be brought within the protection of the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, but there is no presumption in favor of the authority or jurisdic tion of such justice, and such facts must be lawfully established before it can be known to what faith and credit his acts are entitled. Hindman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 83 Kan. 35, 110 P. 102, 21 Ann. Cas. 1152.

Where judgment was confessed in a foreign state by appearance of duly authorized attorney for defendant, it will be enforced in the state, although defendant was not a resident of either state. Where plaintiff and defendant, parties to a foreign judgment, are both nonresidents of Oklahoma, and suit is brought there on that judgment, and property of defendant is attached, the judgment will be enforced. Williams v. Hirschfield, 122 P. 539, 32 Okl. 598.

44 Kitchen v. Bellefontaine Nat. Bank, 36 P. 344, 53 Kan. 242, 42 Am. St. Rep. 282.

45 Thorn v. Salmonson, 15 P. 588, 37 Kan. 441.

In determining the faith and credit to be given to proceedings of a sister state under the federal constitution and acts of congress, the question of jurisdiction of the court of the sister state is always open to inquiry. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Campbell, 49 P. 321, 5 Kan. App. 423.

Neither the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution nor the congressional enactment pursuant thereto preclude an inquiry by the courts of one state into the jurisdiction of a court of another state in which a judgment was rendered. The courts of one state have jurisdiction to declare a judgment of another state void for want of jurisdiction. Earl v. Earl, 48 Okl. 442, 149 P. 1179.

In an action to quiet title to land in Arkansas, where service was made by publication and defendant did not appear, she is not bound beyond the prop erty which was the subject of the suit. Gordon v. Munn, 125 P. 1, 87 Kan. 624, rehearing denied 127 P. 764, 88 Kan. 72, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 783.

The full faith and credit required to be given to the judgments of another state do not preclude recovery of damages from a creditor who has seized a debtor's exempt wages through garnishment proceedings instituted in another state without personal service upon the debtor. Anderson v. Canaday, 131 P. 697, 37 Okl. 171.

A Texas judgment reciting that a notice was duly given and jurisdiction acquired held conclusive as against collateral attack. Barnes v. Brownlee, 155 P. 962, 97 Kan. 517.

diction of the subject-matter which turns on the construction of a statute of the foreign state where the judgment was rendered is not maintainable, where the judgment has been affirmed by the court of last resort of that state.46

The record of a judgment rendered in another state is not admissible to prove the determination of a fact involved in the case being tried, when such record shows that such judgment was rendered without jurisdiction of one of the necessary parties.*

§ 1481. Judgment in rem

Court of chancery, acting in personam, may adjudicate rights of parties as to lands in another state, but can only make its decree effective by requiring conveyance by party of lands in question.48

§ 1482. Fraud

Defendant in an action on a judgment of a sister state may defend on the ground that he was induced to submit himself to jurisdiction of the court of the sister state by fraud of the plaintiff.49 § 1483. Conclusiveness

A judgment of a court of another state may be pleaded in bar of an action for the same cause in this state which was pending prior to its rendition.50

46 McLain v. Parker, 129 P. 1140, SS Kan. 717, judgment affirmed on rehearing 131 P. 153, 88 Kan. $73.

47 Looney v. Reeves, 48 P. 606, 5 Kan. App. 279.

In an action on a judgment rendered in Nebraska, the defense cannot be made that the court erred in rendering such judgment. Blumle v. Kramer, 79 P. 215, 14 Okl. 366; Id., 79 P. 1134, 14 Okl. 373.

48 Sharp v. Sharp (Okl.) 166 P. 175, L. R. A. 1917F, 562.

49 Abercrombie v. Abercrombie, 67 P. 539, 64 Kan. 29.

50 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Baker, 47 P. 563, 5 Kan. App. 253.

An action in another state to have certain conveyances by a debtor set aside, and the property subjected to the payment of plaintiff's judgment and the claims of all other creditors who may come in and set up their demands, is not a bar to an action brought by one of such creditors in this state on a note owned by him, though he may have appeared in the former action, filed a cross-petition, and obtained a finding of the amount due him on the note, if he did not obtain a personal judgment against the defendant in that action, nor receive anything from the sale of the property, since, to constitute a merger, there must be a valid and subsisting judgment rendered on the cause of action. Cackley v. Smith, 28 P. 617, 47 Kan. 642, 27 Am. St. Rep. 311: Same v. Parry, 28 P. 618, 47 Kan. 647.

A judgment in the circuit court of Illinois in habeas corpus for the cus

A decree of a court of a sister state adjusting the rights of persons to a note is not inadmissible in an action on the note against the maker merely because the maker was not a party to the suit in which the decree was rendered.51

In an action in a sister state to foreclose, where the court has jurisdiction and the mortgage is foreclosed, and a return of order of sale shows a deficiency, but no motion is made for deficiency judgment until after limitations run, but the statute is not pleaded to an application for deficiency judgment, it will be deemed waived, and cannot be pleaded in defense to an action in the territory on such foreign judgment.52

§ 1484. Divorce and alimony

A judgment or decree of divorce rendered on publication service in another state, in conformity to the laws thereof, is entitled to the same faith and credit as to marital status as if rendered by a court of this state; 53 but it will not affect the rights of the defendant as to property located in this state."*

tody of a child is res judicata, and cannot be questioned by the party thereto in subsequent proceedings in a court in Kansas on the same state of facts. Bleakley v. Barclay, 89 P. 906, 75 Kan. 462, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 230.

An Illinois judgment on notes for a patent right held conclusive as to their validity in a subsequent action in Kansas on collateral notes. Illinois Title & Trust Co. v. McCoy, 121 P. 1090, 86 Kan. 588.

51 Graham v. Troth, 77 P. 92, 69 Kan. 861.

52 Blumle v. Kramer, 79 P. 215, 14 Okl. 366; Id., 79 P. 1134, 14 Okl. 373. 58 Miller v. Miller, 130 P. 681, 89 Kan. 151.

A judgment of divorce rendered upon publication against a resident of Kansas by a court of Utah having jurisdiction in proceedings regular cannot be collaterally impeached in Kansas, on the ground that plaintiff was in fact a resident of Kansas and not of Utah. Miller v. Miller, 130 P. 681, 89 Kan. 151.

Under Laws 1907, c. 184, providing that any judgment or decree of divorce

54 A foreign divorce decree obtained by a husband on constructive notice without the actual knowledge of the wife cannot affect the rights of the wife and children in property located in Oklahoma. Gooch v. Gooch, 38 Okl, 300, 133 P. 242, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 480.

Where a husband deserted his wife and children, leaving them in the oc cupation of a homestead in Kansas, and, going to another state, procured a divorce in accordance with law, but without actual notice to the wife, though such decree was effectual as to the status of the parties, it was not a bar to the allowance of alimony in the homestead, nor as to the custody of the children, in a subsequent action brought by the wife here. Rodgers v. Rodg ers, 43 P. 779, 56 Kan. 483.