Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/721

 MOCH V, VIKOISIA FUIE <fc MARINE INS. CO. 709 �If the court of general Jurisdiction, iu rendering a judgment, bas passed expressly upon the jurisdictional facts and found them auffi- cient, the parties and their privies are estopped in collateral ac- tions to litigate the matter again. Sheldon v. Wright, 6 N. Y. 497 ; Dyckman v. New York, Id. eu-i. �The courts of one state will not allow parties to show that a court of another state has made an erroneous decision upon issues between the same parties raised before and decided by it. Nurie v. Gastrique, 8 Corn. Bench, (N. S.) 405; and S. G. in error, L. E. 4 H. of L. 414. See, also, Drury's Case, 8 Coke, 1416; and Tarlton t. Fisher, Doug. 671. �These decisions are but examp[es, among many, to show that where a question, even a question of jurisdiction, has been once litigated between two parties by a court of general jurisdiction, it is to be treated as res judicata between the same parties in every other but an appellate forum; and that where, in a litigation between parties in such a court, the question of jurisdiction over parties must have been considered, another court will presume that the court a quo did consider it, and treat that question as res judicata. �No Sound reason can be given why the principle should not apply in a domestic court against parties to a litigation in another sov- ereignty, before a court of general jurisdiction there. And, although the authorities show that the home court may look into the jurisdic- tion of the foreign court, both as to parties and subject-matter, yet they also show that the parties to the other litigation are bound by the principle of res judicata when they corne into the domestic court. �While, therefore, this court is not precluded from looking boiiind the judgment of the court of Louisiana, and judging for itself of the validity of the process by which the defendant is claimed to have been brought into that court, yet that power of the court, which is established by the weight of the authorities, should not be con- founded with the very distinct question, whether the parties to a liti- gation in a foreign court of general jurisdiction are not bound by its decree, on an issue raised between themselves, whether that issue be on the validity of process there, or on the merits. �Though the principle laid down by Judge Allen does not apply to the prejudice of the power of this court to look behind the Louisiana judg- ment, it does apply to the plea of the defendant. If the defendant had not appeared by counsel as it did, the simple question here would have been upon the validity of the process that was served there, and of the judgment by default that was rendered there. But, having ap- ��� �