Miller v. Pennington

¶1The Court below gave judgment for the defendant on the plea of nul tiel record, because the suit in Georgia’was prosecuted against the defendant by attachment as a non-resident debtor, and it did not appear that he was advised of its pendency. We are of opinion that the exemplification is prima Jade evidence *400of a valid judgment, and that to shew it to be otherwise, jt is necessary that the defendant should impugn its validity by special plea: for any thing appearing to the contrary, the defendant may, while in the State where the attachment was'sued out, have acquired a knowledge of its pendency. On the question now involved, the opinion of this Court given at last term, in Hunt & Condry v. Mayfield,a is deemed decisive.

¶2Though we are of opinion that the Court below erred, we cannot render a judgment here for the sum claimed by the plaintiff, as there appears in the record another plea undisposed of. The judgment below is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded.