It  is  true  that  in  Ritchie  v.  Carpenter  the  court  expressed
a  doubt  whether  the  defendant's  answer  in  that  case  raised
any  other  issue  than  that  of  nvl  tiel  record^  and  stated  that
that  was  the  only  defense  available  under  a  general  denial
in  an  action  upon  a  judgment  of  a  court  of  record  of  a  sis-
ter state;  that  the  so-called  defense  was  in  that  case  denials
in  form,  and  that  nothing  was  pleaded  therein  alleging  that
the  court  had  not  jurisdiction  of  either  the  subject  matter
of  the  action  or  of  the  defendant's  person.  But  certainly
no  such  construction  can  be  given  to  the  answer  in  this
case.  The  third  paragraph  of  plaintiff's  complaint  is  as
follows:

"That  the  plaintiff  did,  on  the  18th  day  of  December,
A.  D.  1891,  obtain  a  personal  judgment  against  the  de-
fendant, A.  J.  Mills,  in  the  sum  of  f>219.40,  and  interest
thereon  from  December  7,  1877,  and  costs  in  the  sum  of
$9.46;  that  said  judgment  was  duly  rendered  upon  com-
plaint and  summons  duly  and  personally  served  upon  said
defendant  to  appear  and  answer."

We  fully  concur  in  the  proposition  advanced  by  the  ap-
pellant, viz.,  that  a  defense  requiring  evidence  to  contra-
dict the  record  of  another  state  must  be  formally  pleaded
and  contain  all  the  allegations  necessary  to  sustain  it,  as
announced  in  2  Black  on  Judgments,  §  898,  and  cases  cited.
Also  the  proposition  that  where  want  of  jurisdiction  is  to


AULTMAN  V.  MILLS.  71

May,  1894. j       Opinion  of  the  Court — Dunbar,  C.  J.
be  proved  by  extrinsic  evidence,  the  defense  must  be  spe-
cially and  fully  pleaded,  sustained  by  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.
