An :lll"9hll:litiiil defendant,Jua.n action to enforce a judgn1ent, from maintaining t4!i1t the dwas not duly Riven. madejor,enteredby, a court having competent J'Uiisaicti/lii ''thereof, is not valid. and does' not still stand of record in said court,aud.! filJ![ot' in fUll force against said defend,ant, " is not riolBted by a gendenial of ap, .that such judgment was recQvered in a named court, the e1fect of the denial peUlgmerely to compel plaintitrto produce legal evidence Of ,the jUdgmSl:l.t'. :.: . ,,,,: '. " .. . . But the order by a general denia.l of allegations that tbe judgment, which was aglairiBtl a nODl'!JlIident, was duly enteted, and that it stillstbad of record in t4e '. : , ·
' .: ..: .
, InEquity.' r by. Allgljllica against Erwin Dav:is. Plaintiff moves defepdant andbia attorney, T. D. Kenneson, ..:Motion For 4:8 Fed. Rep. ()1,2; 44 Fed. nep.532"'533; and 37 Fed. Rep. 280-282. , ,Amon MqMU, ,furp41iQti,ff. . defendant. .",t.l " · . f' ; ,This is. a .motion for attachment .for conofthe alleged violation of an injunctionrorder of Davis and his Mtorney frQm olaiming orlilettingllP, lPyuans\Y,.eJ.' or ill any other manner, in action or suit, an<,l. from. the .plaintiff, th8,t a specified judgment agaiIljlt 'lIaid; rendet:ed by a district court in the state of not quly by a.court having competentj.llllis4iction is does not $till stand of r8?ordin £<lllllrt, aoc:Hs:not infulHoroe against said defendant." The in in which the defendant, by his alleged attorney, Mr.· [ the complainant1s amended comat 4tw, upon in which complaint the juq.gment is .d'lchued1-lJ;l(m ill four.cc:HlDt$ or separate causes of action. The defend""nt his. answertWQ classes of defenses, one Consistingof of the complainant's allegations, and the other mainly relyiqg ,UpOl1llA alleged dischargl;l in bankruptcy. The general denials are .in the formwbich denies that thl'l defendant has any knowledge or informatioDsufficient ·to form a belief as to all the allegations contained in specified paragraphs of the complaint. It is not doubted that this statutory: form ofplaading putsin issue the allegations which are referred to, ang .qreates a material ililSue which compels the complainant to proye trial. Livingston v. .Hammer, 7 Bosw. 674, FioQd v. .Reynolds, 13 :ao,iy. Pr.. 112; .Wayland v. Ty8lJ1't., 45 N. Y.281. The question upon this or the Hng up or'these issues by the denials is in violation of the terms of the injunction. The fourth and tenth paragraphs of the complaint
\V AKEL1i:E V.IlA
allege that bn Noveniber18, 1873,' one Wakelee 'NlCoverea a described judgment in the district (lourt, by the terms of which it wasildjuuged that said Wakelee recover of said Davisasum which is specified. The defendant, in his answer,' generally denies these allegations, and thereby an issue of fact is raised, 'whether such judgment was obtained in said court. Neither the validity of the judgment nor the jurisdiction of the conrt is denied. The denial compels the plaintiff to produce legalevidence ofthe judgment, and, although the defendant at one time admitted its existence, he has a right to call upon' the plaintiff to establish, by legal proof, the rendition of a judgment, or what purported to be a judgment. The object of the bill in equity,and of the decree, as is truly said by the defendant, was Dot to relieve the complainant from proof of her cause of action at law. It was to prevent the defendant from using defenses from which he was equitably estopped, and which were, in sub!;tance, a denial of the jurisdictional facts which enabled the court to render this judgment. I perceive no violation of the injunction either in this or the other general denials of the truth of the allegations in the first cauMofaetion. Butin the eleventh and twenty-third pnt'agraphs the plaintiff alleges that said judgment was dUly given, made, anti enteted by said district court, which, i.nasmuch as the dettmdant was shown to .be a nonresident, was a proper and appare'ntly necessary 'avermenf. Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350, (1873;) Wilbur v. Abbot, 6 Fed. Rep. 814. Tlmney v. Tawn8end, 9 Blatchf. 274, contra, was in 1871, and the averment that the judgment was duly entered was It sufficient statement of the facts, under tho New York practice, toimpliedly allege jurisdiction. Brownell v. Greenwich, 114 N. Y. 518, 22 N. E. Rep. 24; Rockwell v. Merwin, 45 N. Y. 166. The denial by the defendant of this al:egation of jurisd;ctional facts, raises an issue of fact in regard to the and, in effect, "sets up" that the judgment was not duly made bJ a court having competent jurisdiction thereof, which was prohibited by the ord«:lr of the court in the equity suit. The seventeenth and twenty-seventh allege, among other things, that. said judgment still stands of record in said district court. The defendant's general denial of this pa.ragraph denies this particular averm'ent.· The injunction in terms enjoined the defendant against settillg up that the judgment does not still stand of record in said district Milrt, and theretore I think that there has been a technical violation .01' the order. .. . The injunction order also expressly prohibited the defencarit from setof the ting up that the judgment is not in full force.. My previous history at' the litigation leads me to think that this reference to the defense of the invalidity 'ofthe judgnlent by reason of the lack of t,he of the court over the person of the defendant, and not to a discharge of the j'udgment, or of the debt evidenced thereby. by reason of bankruptcy proceedings. I do not unde,rstand that the defendant was iri' fact enjoined against this' defense; and ,from maintaining that by reason of it the judgment hail lost its force: ,In my opinio'ri, the. defendant's general denial'Mtbe seventeenthal)4 eighteenth paragraphsofthe cdmplaint, which allege thai the jUdgment is in full
have refetelilce to jurisdictional facts, but to discharge. In the/sixth and seventh divisions of the third paragraph of the defendant's specia.l defense, the facts in regard to the jurisdictioQ of the California .court i()Ver the person of the .defendal1t Pavis, the serviQe by publication, the California statute, and his nonappearance in the suit are set forth. at length. These facts are pleaded ,as a part of the defense of the discharge in bankruptcy, and, as the Code requires that each separate defense should be separately stated, it cannot be SUPP9sed that they constitute adQu,ble. defense. If they are material to the defense in bankruptcy,'-and from the fact that they are pleaded it isto be presumed tbat the pleader them material,-they preand claim, and setup by answer, the invalidity of thlljudgmentas the defense. ,This is prphibiwd by the injUlwtion order, which the from in any manner or form maintaining that the J.IH.,qg.m en.twas ,no.t. made by c.our hav,i.ng competent jurisdiction thereOf. .. . Pltfticulars which have heenqaU)led, I am of ppinion that the de1lt¥1rn.ey has not c91mplied with the injunction order,and that tpe"r;:igljlti?u""ill be One until the answet: is amended. IT'4e suggest£lollly a fineequiy:alent to the amount of expenses which lW has incurred in the preparation of the voluminous motion papers. The qu.estion of the amount of: fine will be SUbmitted to the upon ,aHidavits, and without argpInept, within one week from the filhig of.thiaopinion. The order Will, b,e thereafter bettled upon hearing.
Ex parte SKtLES.
(Circuit Court, D.Minnesota, Third, DLvf.sfon. June S, 1892.)
JUBEAS COlWUs-J"ORISDIOTION Oll' FED,ERAL COURTS-ExTRADITED PRISONER CON, VIOTED Oll' DIll'l!'ERENT OFnlNSE. ' .
, The:feaeral courts have no jurilldiction to review by h.abOO8 cO'rpuli a judgment of conviction in .a state court having jUJ'isdiction of the person and the offense, although the prisoner had· been extradited from another state to answer an indictment, and was oonvicted of an olJenseother than that charged therein. His remedy :. '. Is br appeal 91' other appropriate proceedings in the state courts.
At Law:. Application of Robert for writ of habeaa COrpU8. Denied. .' . '.. " r"r,' and J·. Nethaway, for petitioner. , H. BUll/wan, Co. Atty., for t,he State. Thepris()D,er, Skill'll!!. ,was rendered up to tl},e state of Minnesota on demand of. the executive, from the state of by proceedings .commenced uhder the cOIlsdtution and laws of the United States in regard to the qeliyery of fugitives from justice. Hl #as delivered up and state of Mhlllesota, and confined in the jail, 12, 1892" a:n allegation that an indict-