The opinion
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The judgment of the circuit court was wrong. It is true that a judgment of the justice of the peace of another State, who had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and also, of the person of the defendant, by voluntary appearance or by due service of process upon him, is conclusive as to the merits of the demand on which it is founded, unless it was obtained by fraud. Glass v. Blackwell, 48 Ark. 50 , and Albright v. Mickey, 99 Ark. 147 .
It is equally well settled that a foreign judgment can be attacked collaterally without violating the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution in an action thereon in a State other than that in which it was rendered, by showing that the defendant had not been served with process and did not enter his appearance to the action in the State where the judgment was rendered. Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177 ; National Exchange Bank of Tiffin v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 257 ; and Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Cherry, 244 U. S. 25 .
Numerous other cases sustaining the rule that, if the court which' rendered the judgment has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, the judgment for that reason is not entitled to recognition or enforcement in another State, may be found in 34 C. J., § 1614, pp. 1138 and 1139.
Moreover, this court has held that, even in the case of a domestic judgment of a justice of the peace, the want of jurisdiction of the person of the defendant may be shown collaterally. O. T. Dixon Printing & Stationery Co. v. Plank, 144 Ark. 485 , and eases cited.
The fact that the judgment of the justice of the peace was filed in the circuit court of the county in which it was rendered in the State of Missouri did not make' it a judgment of that court. This was only a statutory means provided for the better enforcement of the judgment, and it still remained a judgment of the justice’s court.
In this connection it may tie stated that the answer of the defendant alleging that there has been no service of process upon him in the justice’s court in the State of Missouri, where the judgment sued on was rendered, and that he did not enter his appearance to that action, constituted' new matter within the meaning of § 1194 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, which the defendant was required to plead. The answer is not evidence of the new matter set up in defense of the original judgment rendered in the justice’s court in the State of Missouri, and the burden of proving its truth will devolve upon the defendant pleading it.
It necessarily follows from the views we have expressed that the circuit court erred in striking the answer of the defendant from the files of the court, and for that error the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.