(z) Snell v. Foussat, 3 Binn. 229, n. ; Cheriot v. Foussat, id. 220.

(a) Bank of North America v. M'Catl, 4 Binn. 371.

Another essential is, that the defendant in the foreign action had such personal notice as enabled him to defend himself; or that his interests were otherwise actually and in good faith protected. (b) And the notice must be such as the court from which it issued has authority to give. (c) If it be by summons, and in the State in which it issued, that is equivalent to personal notice, it will so be held in other States as to the judgment founded upon it. (d)

It seems to be held, that a plaintiff who has recovered a judgment abroad may elect to sue at home on that judgment, or on the original cause of action, because there is no merger. (e)

The relations between the several States of the Union are peculiar. In some respects they are held to be foreign to each other, as they are for most purposes in the law of admiralty; and in other respects not foreign, excepting so far as this is necessarily implied in their independence of each other. On this subject the Constitution of the United States declares, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." (f) In execution of this power, the First Congress passed a statute, providing "that the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the * said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from whence the said records are or shall be taken." (g)

In the construction of these clauses, many questions have been raised, and a great diversity of opinion manifested. The more important of these questions we have, however, already considered.

(b) See ante, p. * 588, n. (l), and supra, n. (y).

(c) Therefore, where a court in Rhode Island ordered personal notice to be given a defendant in Massachusetts, which was done, it was not such a notice as would suffice for the foundation of a judgment on which an action could be maintained in Massachusetts. Ewer v. Coffin, 1 Cush. 28.

(d) Rocco v. Hackett, 21 Law Rep. 868; and see Barringer v. King, 6 Gray, 9.

(e) Smith v. Nicolls, 6 Bing. N. C. 208; Hall v. Odber, 11 East, 118.

(f) Art. 4, § 1.

(g) 1 U. S. Stats, at Large, 122, ch. xxxvii.

It has been held, that the provisions of the statute must be strictly complied with. Thus, it will be noticed that the records are to be attested by the seal of the court, "if there be a seal;" therefore the records of a court not having a seal may be sufficiently attested otherwise. But there is no similar phraseology as to the attestation of the clerk; that is therefore absolutely requisite; and, consequently, the proceedings of a court which has no clerk, as a court held by a justice of the peace, cannot be authenticated in the terms of the statute, and therefore cannot be entitled to the whole privilege which purports to be given by the clause in the Constitution. (h)

There remains to be considered, the operation of the law of place upon the insolvent laws of this country. But these laws are, in this respect, principally influenced and affected by the clause in the Constitution which forbids the several States from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts; and we shall advert to this subject when we speak specifically of that clause, and of the law of bankruptcy.

(h) This question is very fully considered in Snyder v. Wise, 10 Penn. St 167; and the decision there is in accordance with the text, and with Warren v. Flagg, 2 Pick. 448; Robinson v. Prescott, 4 N. H. 450; Mahurin v. Bickford, 6 id.

567; and Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 6 Ohio, 545. But, for cases which incline to an opposite opinion, see Bissell v. Edwards, 5 Day, 363; Starkweather v. Loring, 2 Vt. 678; and Blodgett v. Jordan, 6 id. 680.