United States v. Morton, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2769, 2773, 81 L.Ed.2d 680 (1984), cited by the dissent, is inapposite, for the state statute there in question required that competent jurisdiction be determined from the "face" of the process, whereas no such language appears here. That Virginia courts would actually examine the jurisdictional basis of a judgment from another state before relying upon it to uphold a license suspension is evident from Lamb v. Butler, 198 Va. 509, 95 S.E.2d 239 (1956), the most recent in a series of license deprivation cases decided by Virginia's highest tribunal. In Butler, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing an order temporarily revoking his driver's license.

The very goal of equity is “to render natural right or justice.” Lamb v. Butler, 95 S.E.2d 239, 247 (Va. 1956).

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations, supra, § 6. See, e.g., Tichenor v. Magee, 4 N.J. Super. 467, 67 A.2d 895; Howard v. Fletcher, 278 App. Div. 799, 104 N.Y.S.2d 176; Lamb v. Butler, 198 Va. 509, 95 S.E.2d 239. Affirmed.

In his absence he was convicted of the offense and his bond was forfeited. This court has held that such action on the part of a motorist is in itself a plea of guilty to the offense charged ( Lamb v. Butler, 198 Va. 509, 520, 95 S.E.2d 239, 246) but the record of Pamplin's plea and conviction is not admissible as evidence in this case. Honaker v. Howe, 19 Gratt. (60 Va.) 50, 55, 56. Furthermore, the plaintiff was not a party to the criminal prosecution against Pamplin and he is not bound by its result.

It has been held in numerous states that a forfeiture of bail is equivalent to a conviction for purposes of statutes authorizing the revocation or suspension of an operator's driving license. Lamb v. Butler, 198 Va. 509, 95 S.E.2d 239; Lamb v. Smith, 195 Va. 1053, 81 S.E.2d 768; Turro v. Carpentier, 26 Ill. App. 2d 156, 167 N.E.2d 568; and Pryor v. David, 436 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.). See also Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 866.

In Com. v. Halteman, 192 Pa. Super. 379, 162 A.2d 251, we held that where the appellant admitted he paid a fine, that constituted an admission of conviction. The payment of the fine and costs is tantamount to an admission of conviction: HallMotor Vehicle Operator License Case, 196 Pa. Super. 346, 175 A.2d 534. It has been held in numerous states that a forfeiture of bail is equivalent to a conviction: Fox v.Scheidt (N.C.), 84 S.E.2d 259; Lamb v. Butler (Va.), 95 S.E.2d 239; Lamb v. Smith (Va.), 195 Va. 1053, 81 S.E.2d 768; Application of Fink, 205 N.Y.S. 2d 256. The payment of the fine and costs amounted to a waiver of a hearing and a plea of guilty.