This action was brought upon a judgment rendered in the Supreme Court of the state of New York on November 27, 1903, for $4,833.63, in favor' of defendant in error against the plaintiff in error herein. The complaint, after reciting the facts necessary to give the circuit court jurisdiction, and the entry of judgment, alleges:

A demurrer was interposed to the complaint on the ground:

This demurrer was, by consent, overruled. The answer, upon information and belief denied all the allegations in the complaint, and, among other things, alleged:

The cause was tried before a jury, and a verdict, under the direction of the court, was rendered in favor of the defendant in error.

The assignments of error are as follows;

The record upon the writ of error contains none of the proceedings in the court below except such as constitute the judgment roll. When the case came up for hearing in this court, the defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error for failure upon the part of the plaintiff in error to bring up a sufficient record, and, in support of this motion, counsel presented an affidavit, which among other things, stated:

Upon the hearing of this motion, this court—

In his brief “the plaintiff in error, in fulfillment of said requirement, hereby expressly admits the truth of the said affidavit in its entirety.” The contention of the plaintiff in error is, that until an appeal is disposed of, or the time to take an appeal has expired, the cause is pending, and until the judgment becomes final, no cause of action accrues thereon; that the pleading is to be construed against the pleader, and in the absence of any allegation in the complaint to the effect that the time for appeal has expired, the presumption is that the time has not expired, and qpon these grounds asks for a reversal of the judgment. Is the complaint absolutely defective? Did the court err in directing the jury to find a verdict in favor of the defendant in error?

A judgment of a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state is entitled, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, to all the *838 dignity of a record in respect to pleadings and evidence. In 2 Black on Judg. § 874, the author says:

The rule of law is well settled, that in bringing suit on a judgment rendered in a court of record in another state, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to aver that the court had jurisdiction either of the person or subject-matter, orto set outthe facts conferring jurisdiction, for jurisdiction- is presumed to have existed until the cpntrary is clearly shown by way of defense to the action. 2 Black on Judg. § 875; and authorities there cited. The defendant in error, for the purpose of its complaint, had the right to rely upon the same presumption to which it would have been entitled if it had been declaring upon a judgment in the same state in which it was rendered, and leave the plaintiff in error to plead and prove want of- jurisdiction if it could. If the action was brought in California, before the time allowed by the statute of New York for the plaintiff in error to appeal, it would have been a matter of defense in the present action, and could have been set up in the answer, and if true, could have been shown by it; but no evidence of this kind is shown by the record to have been introduced at the trial. It was not necessary for defendant in error to allege that no appeal had ever been taken, nor that the time to take an appeal had expired. In Chaquette v. Ortet, 60 Cal. 594, 601 , the court said:

It is true, as plaintiff in error contends, that a judgment must be final in order to sustain an action thereon. But the judgment in question certainly became final if the time for taking an appeal thereon had expired. A judgment is none the less a final judgment, within the meaning of the rule requiring judgments to be final in order to sustain an action thereon, because an appeal is pending, if no supersedeas bond on appeal is given. The law is well settled that, unless it appears that the appeal, if one had been taken, suspends the judgment in the state where it was rendered, its pendency is no bar to an action in another state on the judgment. In Dow v. Blake, 148 Ill. 76, 84 , 35 N. E. 761 , 39 Am. St. Rep. 156 , the court said:

In Faber v. Hovey, 117 Mass. 107 , 19 Am. Rep. 398 , Gray, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court, said:

*839 See, also, Union Trust Co. v. Rochester & P. R. Co. (C. C.) 29 Fed. 609 ; Woodbridge & Turner E. Co. v. Ritter (C. C.) 70 Fed. 677 .

Applying these rules to the complaint, it necessarily follows that the court did not err in overruling the demurrer. When to this is added the fact, as shown by the admission of the plaintiff inDerror, that it was duly proven at the trial that the time for appeal from the judgment in New York had expired, and that no exception was taken to such proof, and no evidence to the contrary offered at the trial, and it not appearing that any objection was made in the court below to the direction of the judge to the jury to find a verdict for the defendant in error, there does not appear to be any legal peg upon which the plaintiff in error can hang its hope for a reversal of the case. The presumption for which it contends is without support in reason or authority. Casting aside for the moment, the existence of the facts set forth in the affidavit of counsel for the defendant in error, it would, nevertheless, be the duty of this court — even if the complaint was defective and the court erred in overruling it — to presume that the pleading had been amended so as to allow such proof to be admitted, and the error, if any; was cured by the verdict. Every matter which would have been admissible by way of amendment to the complaint, should be deemed to have been added, or its absence waived or cured after verdict. Davidson v. Oregon & C. R. Co. (Or.) 1 Pac. 705 . Where the evidence supports the verdict, the pleadings, if defective, will be treated as amended to conform to the proofs. Haley v. Kilpatrick, 104 Fed. 647 , 44 C. C. A. 102 . In Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Co., 189 U. S. 221, 231 , 23 Sup. Ct. 517, 47 L. Ed. 782 , the court said:

See, also, Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. 522, 529 , 65 C. C. A. 226 .

In Ladd v. Piggot (Ill.) 2 N. E. 503 , the court quoted with approval the language in 1 Chit. Pl. (14th Am. Ed.) 673:

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed-