JUDGMENTS.
1. Foreign judgments; Res judicata; Comity. Juidgent rendered in the public
of Panama is not res ju-dclia in Canal Zone under international comity: it Is
prima face only. Dies v. Schisber, 51.
2. Foreign judgments; res judicata; comity. Where a foreign country gives conclusive effects to our judgments, c6mity requires that we give like etect to
their judgments. Dies v. Schuber, suprq.
3. Res judicata; what included. All matters litigated, or which might have been
litigated, between the parties in ain tion, are res judicial. DiezV. Schibe,
supra.
4. Effect of foreign judgments. Foreign judgments ate ptresumptive evidence only
and may be repealed by showing lack of jurisdiction, fraud, collusion, rdputgnancy to the local law, or clear mistake of law or fact. Siingiis v. Sithpkins,
273.
5. When may be vacated. A judgment of this court may be vacated only during
the term at Which it Was rendered. Dies v. Patterson, 349.
6. Res judicata; Divorce. The doctrine of res jfudicate is applicable to divorce
actions to the same extent and with the saie limitation as to othert actions.
Reeves v. Reeves, 576.
7. Forit of, validity. Whbre the court has jurisdiction of the parties atid the subject matter of the actiodfi, and a trial on the merits is had and the court announces its decision, and such decision is recorded by the clerk in the minute book df the court in Which all orders, judgments and dectees of the t6tift Atd recorded, showing the title of the court and the cause, the nature of the action, that a trial was had, and a denial of the relief demanded by the plaintiff in het petitioi, such record has all the elements of a valid judgment aird will be
so considered. Reeves V. Reeves, 578.
JURISDICTION.
See Actions (1-3); Adverse Claimants (1); Courts (1); Guardians (1); Process (1-2-45-6); C(onstitutional Law (3); Pleading (6-9-11-15-16); Appeal and Error (2).
1. Transitory actions. On grounds of public policy, Canal Zone courts will decline jurisdiction in transitory actions where parties are alien to the jurisdiction where the cause of action arises in the Republic of Panama and where the courts of that country are open to the litigants. George v. United Fruit
Co., 20.
2. Injunction. Injunctiont does not lie to restrain the United States from dispossessing former owners of lands in the Canal Zone without first paying
compensation therefore. Dixon V. Gothals, 23. Anderson v. Goethals, 23.
3. Cause of action arising in the Canal Zone. Although defendant is a foreign corporation, it is subject to suit in the courts of the Canal Zone, it appearing that it transacts business here and that the cause of action accrued in the
Canal Zone. Laport, Admx. v. P R. Co., 27.
4. Injunction. Courts will not enijoin disposession of plaintiffs by United States of lands in the Canal Zone, the plaintiffs having presented a claim for comprisatim to the Joint Cottmission. Bressie, dt al, v. Gdethdis, et a 38
5. Crime partly committed in Canal Zone. Undet Sec. 34 Petal Code, Where any part of the ctime is committed in the Canal Zotte the court of the Zoie haVe
jurisdiction of the action. Government V. Fajardo, 44.
MR 97966-41