Rowley v. Carron

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Rowley v. Carron

11 A. 435, 117 Pa. 52, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 234

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 3, 1887

DocketNo. 183

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 A. 435 (Rowley v. Carron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rowley v. Carron, 11 A. 435, 117 Pa. 52, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 234 (Pa. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion,

Me. Chief Justice Gordon :

This was an action of debt, and the plaintiff declared on an exemplification from the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Cuyahoga, state of Ohio. On offer of this exemplification the defendant interposed the objection that the plaintiff had declared upon a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county, and the record offered was a judgment obtained before a justice of the peace. This objection was overruled and the record admitted. The question, then, that we have before us is the correctness of this ruling.

The argument on part of the plaintiff in error assumes that the entry of the justice’s transcript, in accordance with the Ohio Statute, did not make it a judgment of that court; for it seems to be conceded that if, under the laws of that state, it is to be treated as a judgment of the Common Pleas, it must, under the 4th article of the constitution of the United States, be so treated in this state. We must give “full faith and credit ” to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the state of Ohio. What, then, was the credit given to these proceedings in the courts of that state ? Did the entry of the transcript give it the force of a judgment of the Common Pleas? If so, it is beyond the reach of collateral inquiry either in that state or this. But .to determine this question we need go no farther than the Ohio statute itself. That statute provides for the entry of the transcript in the Common Pleas, and by force of such entry it becomes a lien on the defendant’s real- estate. It further provides, sec. 5379: “Execution may [56]*56be issued on such judgment at any time after filing the transcript as if the judgment had been rendered in court; but the lien to remain as provided in the preceding section.” From tins it follows, that the “ credit ” given to an entry of this kind in Ohio, is the same as if the judgment had been rendered in the court of Common Pleas. This determines its status in this state; hence, the court below was right in refusing to sustain the defendant’s objection, and in admitting the transcript in evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion,

Me. Chief Justice Gordon :

This was an action of debt, and the plaintiff declared on an exemplification from the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Cuyahoga, state of Ohio. On offer of this exemplification the defendant interposed the objection that the plaintiff had declared upon a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county, and the record offered was a judgment obtained before a justice of the peace. This objection was overruled and the record admitted. The question, then, that we have before us is the correctness of this ruling.

The argument on part of the plaintiff in error assumes that the entry of the justice’s transcript, in accordance with the Ohio Statute, did not make it a judgment of that court; for it seems to be conceded that if, under the laws of that state, it is to be treated as a judgment of the Common Pleas, it must, under the 4th article of the constitution of the United States, be so treated in this state. We must give “full faith and credit ” to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the state of Ohio. What, then, was the credit given to these proceedings in the courts of that state ? Did the entry of the transcript give it the force of a judgment of the Common Pleas? If so, it is beyond the reach of collateral inquiry either in that state or this. But .to determine this question we need go no farther than the Ohio statute itself. That statute provides for the entry of the transcript in the Common Pleas, and by force of such entry it becomes a lien on the defendant’s real- estate. It further provides, sec. 5379: “Execution may [56]*56be issued on such judgment at any time after filing the transcript as if the judgment had been rendered in court; but the lien to remain as provided in the preceding section.” From tins it follows, that the “ credit ” given to an entry of this kind in Ohio, is the same as if the judgment had been rendered in the court of Common Pleas. This determines its status in this state; hence, the court below was right in refusing to sustain the defendant’s objection, and in admitting the transcript in evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A. 435, 117 Pa. 52, 1887 Pa. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowley-v-carron-pa-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack