In other words, comity differs from the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in that a state court must give credit to a foreign judgment or order that is subject to full faith and credit without inquiry into the merits of the action, but a foreign judgment or order may be enforced as a matter of comity. Rich v. Con-Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969). It is appropriate to exercise comity when a court recognizes the rights upon which a decree of a sister state is based and decides that the enforcement of such rights does not violate any principle of public policy of the forum court's state.

In other words, comity differs from the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in that a state court must give credit to a foreign judgment or order that is subject to full faith and credit without inquiry into the merits of the action, but a foreign judgment or order may be enforced as a matter of comity. Rich v. Con–Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969)."It is appropriate to exercise comity when a court recognizes the rights upon which a decree of a sister state is based and decides that the enforcement of such rights does not violate any principle of public policy of the forum court's state.

Although Siko concedes that no case has been found in which a Texas court has recognized and enforced a foreign country judgment that orders the performance of an act, Texas courts have repeatedly recognized and enforced such sister-state judgments under comity principles. See, e.g. McElreath v. McElreath, 345 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Tex. 1961) (recognizing and enforcing an Oklahoma equitable decree ordering the transfer of title to Texas land under comity principles); Allis v. Allis, 378 F.2d 721, 726-28 (5th Cir. 1967) (applying Texas law in recognizing and enforcing Nevada judgment determining ownership of Texas land);Rich v. ConStan Indus., Inc., 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ) (recognizing and enforcing California decree enjoining defendant from infringing plaintiff's trademark). In addition, courts from other states have recognized foreign country judgments and orders requiring the performance of an act.

The full faith and credit clause requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the laws or public policy of the other states. Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life Accident Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 714, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1371, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Rich v. Con-Stan Indus., 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1969, no writ). Full faith and credit is not required, however, when a decree is interlocutory or subject to modification under the law of the rendering state. Barber, 323 U.S. at 81, 65 S.Ct. at 139; Williams, 584 S.W.2d at 261; Cutler v. Cutler, 543 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Bard, 839 S.W.2d at 794 (citing UnderwritersNat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life Accident HealthIns. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 714, 102 S. Ct. 1357, 1371, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1982)); Rich v. Con-Stan Indus., 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ)). A judgment rendered by a sister state is entitled to the same recognition and credit in the enforcing state that it would receive in the state where rendered.

Neither Just nor the Texas Attorney General have favored this Court with an appellate brief. As a general rule, a judgment rendered by a court of a sister-state may not be enforced in Texas without either the filing of a common law action to enforce the foreign judgment, or by authenticating the foreign judgment in accordance with the requirements of an act of congress or an applicable Texas statute. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 35.003 (a) (Vernon 1997); Jack H. Brown Co. v. Northwest Sign Co., 665 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1984, no writ); Rich v. Con-Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1969, no writ). In addition to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, provides the procedure for registering a foreign support order in Texas.

The full faith and credit clause requires that a valid judgment from one state be enforced in other states regardless of the other states' laws or public policies. Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life Accident Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 716, 102 S.Ct. 1357, 1371-72, 71 L.Ed.2d 558 (1982); Rich v. Con-Stan Indus., 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App. — Tyler 1969, no writ). A judgment rendered by a sister state is entitled to the same recognition and credit in Texas as it would receive in the state where rendered.

The more well-reasoned rule, embodied in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 117 (1969), is that a valid judgment rendered in one state should be recognized and enforced in another state even though the latter state's strong public policy would have precluded recovery if the action had been filed originally in the courts of that state. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230, 237, 28 S.Ct. 641, 643, 52 L.Ed. 1039 (1908); Cannon v. Cannon, 244 Ga. 199, 260 S.E.2d 19, 20 (1979); Conquistador Hotel Corp. v. Fortino, 99 Wis.2d 16, 298 N.W.2d 236, 238 (1980); and Rich v. Con-Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969). Under Georgia law, a successful plaintiff in an action for breach of contract who has proved that the defendant acted in bad faith is entitled to receive prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys fees, and exemplary damages.

This is required in full faith and credit cases even though the rule being applied is contrary to the public policy of the situs state. Elmer v. Elmer, supra at 20; Rich v. Con-Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323, 327 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969, no writ). We find no merit in appellant's point of error, and the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

This is required in full faith and credit cases even though the rule being applied is contrary to the public policy of the situs state. Rich v. Con-Stan Industries, 449 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1969, no writ). The Appellant's points of error are overruled and the summary judgment in favor of the Appellee is affirmed.