Whenever a party who has obtained a judgment in one state or county has occasion to take proceedings for its enforcement in another, he finds-perhaps to his surprise-that his judgment as such has no extra-territorial force, but that in other jurisdictions it is merely evidence of a settled demand, upon which judgment must be obtained in a new suit before there can be process for its enforcement. A creditor cannot, for example, upon a judgment recovered in New York, have an execution in Pennsylvania; for courts issue executions only upon their own judgments; and while it would no doubt be within the competency of legislative power to authorize courts to issue final process upon the transcripts of judgments produced to them from other jurisdictions, it has not, either in the United States or in Great Britain, been deemed wise to do so. By international law judgments properly obtained are entitled to respect everywhere; but when relief is to be given upon them it must be given according to the local law and the local judicial practice; and this involves the necessity of obtaining judgment in the jurisdiction where process of enforcement is desired: Mcbure v. Benceni, 2 Ired. Eq. 513 ; s. c. 40 Am. Dec. 437 ; Savings Inst. v. Guber, 34 N. J. Eq. 130.
Cooley, Thomas M. "The Remedies for the Collection of Judgments Against Debtors who are Residents or Property Holders in Another State, or Within the British Dominions." Am. L. Reg. 31 (1883): 697-711.