It is evident, however, that a judgment does not necessarily have anything to do with agreement. It may, it is true, be based on contract, or it may be entered by agreement; but on the other hand it may be based on tort and may be rendered only after all means of resistance have been exhausted. Furthermore, it possesses certain elements which are inconsistent with the modern idea of a contract.

First, as between the parties thereto the record is conclusive as to matters litigated,1 and it is equally conclusive as to those claiming under such parties2 though it is not conclusive as to strangers;3 as to a party suing in a different capacity,4 or as to nominal parties without real interest.5 It is not conclusive as to issues not passed upon,6 or as to rights not litigated.7 It is, of course, not conclusive if the court rendering the judgment has no jurisdiction to render such judgment,8 or, it has been held, if the petition shows affirmatively that no cause of action against defendant exists.9

9 Henry v. Henry, 11 Ind. 236; 71 Am. Dec. 354.

10 Barber v. International Co., 74 Conn. 652; 92 Am. St. Rep. 246; 51 Atl. 857. (Even where held not to be a contract for the purpose of the statute of limitations.)

11Lynde v. Lynde, 162 N. Y. 405, 417; 76 Am. St. Rep. 332; 48 L. R. A. 679; 56 N. E. 979; Conrad v. Everich, 50 0. S. 476, 481; 40 Am. St. Rep. 679; 35 N. E. 58; Trowbridge v. Spinning, 23 Wash. 48, 64; 83 Am. St. Rep. 806; 62 Pac. 125.

12 Union Bank v. Board of Commissioners of Oxford, 90 Fed. 7, 12.

1Keech v. Beatty, 127 Cal. 177; 59 Pac. 837; Naftzger v. Gregg, 99 Cal. 83; 37 Am. St. Rep. 23; 33 Pac. 757; Lancaster v. Snow, 184 Ill. 534; 56 N. E. 813; Bruce v. Osgood, 154 Ind. 375; 56 N. E. 25; Moy v. Moy, 111 la. 161; 82 N. W.

481; Willard v. Ostrander, 51 Kan. 481; 37 Am. St. Rep. 294; 32 Pac. 1092; Gregory v. Pike, 94 Me. 27; 46 Atl. 793; Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107; 19 Am. Rep. 398; Day v. De Jonge, 66 Mich. 550; 33 N. W. 527; De Camp v. Miller, 44 N. J. L. 617; Mershon v. Williams, 63 N. J. L. 398; 44 Atl. 211; Allen v. Text Book Co., 201 Pa. St. 579; 88 Am. St. Rep. 834; 51 Atl. 323; same case, sub nom., Allen v. Engineers' Co., 196 Pa. St. 512; 46 Atl. 899; Thornton v. Baker, 15 R. I. 553; 2 Am. St. Rep. 925; 10 Atl. 617; King v. Ross, 21 R. I. 413; 45 Atl. 146.

2 O'Connell v. Ry. Co., 184 Ill. 308; 56 N. E. 355; Scott v. Hall, 60 X. J. Eq. 451; 46 Atl. 611; reversing 58 N. J. Eq. 42; 43 Atl. 50; Wadsworth v. Murray, 161 N. Y. 274; 76 Am. St. Rep. 265; 55 N. E. 910.

Second, the validity of a judgment cannot be attacked collaterally if the court rendering it had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the defendant against whom it is rendered,10 but if the judgment is void it is liable to collateral

3 Garland County v. Hot Springs County, 68 Ark. 83; 56 S. W. 636; Cloverdale v. Smith, 128 Cal. 230; 60 Pac. 851; Going v. Society, 117 Mich. 230; 75 N. W. 462; Seymour v. Wallace, 121 Mich. 402; 80 N. W. 242; Selleck v. Janesville, 104 Wis. 570; 76 Am. St. Rep. 892; 47 L. R. A. 691; 80 N. W. 944; Hart v. Moulton, 104 Wis. 349; 76 Am. St. Rep. 881; 80 N. W. 599; Hood v. Dorer, 107 Wis. 149; 82 N. W. 546.

4 Pollock v. Cox, 108 Ga. 430; 34 S. E. 213.

5 Walker v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St. 168; 78 Am. St. Rep. 801; 45 Atl. 657.

6 Beronio v. Lumber Co., 129 Cal. 232; 61 Pac. 958.

7 Smith v. Rountree, 185 Ill. 219; 56 N. E. 1130; affirming 85 Ill. App. 161; Bacon v. Schepflin, 185 Ill. 122; 56 N. E. 1123; affirming 85 Ill. App. 553; Weeks v. Edwards, 176 Mass. 453; 57 N. E. 701; Rossman v. Tilleny, 80 Minn. 160; 83 N. W. 42; American, etc., Co. v. Macdonnell, 93 Tex. 398; 55 S. W. 737; Dillard v. Dillard, 97 Va.434; 34 S. E. 60.

8 Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34; Hall v. Melvin, 62 Ark. 439; 54 Am.

St. Rep. 301; 35 S. W. 1109; Mc-Carty v. Kinsey, 154 Ind. 447; 57 N. E. 108; Morgan v. Dodge, 44 N. H. 255; 82 Am. Dec. 213; Springer v. Shavender, 118 N. C. 33; 54 Am. St. Rep. 708; 23 S. E. 976; denying rehearing in 116 N. C. 12; 47 Am. St. Rep. 791; 33 L. R. A, 772; 21 S. E. 397; Melia v. Simmons, 45 Wis. 334; 30 Am. Rep. 746.

9 "Where a bill shows no cause of action against the defendants with reference to the subject-matter of the suit, tenders no issue with them but on the contrary shows that there never could be any issue with them, the complaint not even being susceptible of amendment to show an issue, a decree based on such a bill is a nullity, no matter how attacked." Hall v. Melvin, 62 Ark. 439, 443; 54 Am. St. Rep. 301, 302; 35 S. W. 1109. (Citing Munday v. Vail, 34 N. J. L. 418; Spoors v. Coen, 44 O. S. 497; 9 N. E. 132; Seamster v. Blackstock, 83 Va. 232; 5 Am. St. Rep. 262; 2 S. E. 36.)

10 Van Wagenen v. Carpenter, 27 Colo. 444; 61 Pac. 698; Figge v. Rowlen, 185 Ill. 234; 57 N. E. 195; Lancaster v. Snow, 184 Ill. 534; 56 N. E. 813; Watkins v. Lewis, 153 attack.11 Jurisdictional facts such as the entering by an attorney of the appearance of a defendant who is not served12 may be attacked in a direct proceeding for that purpose.

Further, a judgment operates as a merger of the cause of action on which it is rendered, so that after its rendition no liabilities exist except by reason of the judgment.13 By statute a judgment operates under certain circumstances as a lien on realty; and a judgment may be enforced by execution. A subsequent suit thereon is not necessary in the jurisdiction in which it was rendered.