Ring v. . Whitman

Adams, J. Tbe Federal Constitution provides that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to tbe public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. Const., Art. IV, sec. 1. But this provision does not prevent an inquiry whether tbe judgment sued on is impeachable for fraud. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S., 112, 33 Law Ed., 538; Mottu v. Davis, 151 N. C., 237. Tbe appellant alleges that tbe action in tbe Virginia Court was fraudulent because it was brought “in a form and manner to obtain judgment by default against defendant although there were.no facts to warrant any such action.” This is tantamount to an allegation that tbe judgment rendered in Virginia was erroneous in law; but it was beld in Fauntelroy v. Lum, 210 U. S., 230, 52 Law Ed., 1039, that a judgment cannot be impeached by showing that it was based on an error of law. And in Williamson v. Jerome, 169 N. C., 215, it is said: “Tbe courts of this State will not vacate or enjoin a judgment merely based upon a cause of action, which may be vitiated by fraud, for this is a valid defense which may be interposed at tbe trial; and unless its interposition is prevented by the fraud of tbe adversary, it cannot be asserted against a judgment either foreign or domestic. Black on Judgments, sec. 919, and cases there cited.” Tbe defendant bad been personally served with summons and was given every opportunity to present to tbe Circuit Court of Grayson County tbe defense be now seeks to interpose. This principle applies also to bis contention that be has a valid counterclaim to tbe cause of action and that no copy of tbe account was served on him as required by section 6132 of tbe Code of Virginia. It may be said in addition that as we understand tbe declaration tbe action was laid in assumpsit to which tbe succeeding section would apply. *546 The appellant further relies on an inquisition of lunacy under which he was committed to the hospital in Morganton. The record shows that the inquisition was made in June, 1923, and that the defendant was discharged on 8 August, 1924. He was personally served with summons in the present action on 10 March, 1927, and employed an attorney; but the attorney filed no answer because in his opinion the appellant did not have “a leg to stand on.” Judgment Affirmed.