The Virginia judgment sued on was not void for any reason contended, and the trial court properly granted the plaintiff summary judgment.

Peterson filed an action against Allied Productions, Inc. and others in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia. The case came on for hearing, and the Virginia judge entered the following order: "It appearing to the Court that heretofore, the Defendants, and each of them, were duly served with process, pursuant to Sec. 881.3 of the 1950 Code of Va. as amended, and it further appearing to the Court that there has been no answer or other pleading or appearance by any of the Defendants herein, and each of them are consequently in default, and the Court finding from the evidence presented herein that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter and of the parties, it is, hereby, adjudged, ordered and decreed that the Defendants, and each of them, are in default and that the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment to be entered herein," and ordering a jury trial on the question of damages. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Peterson in the amount of $210,000. The appellants sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Virginia from an adverse ruling on their petition to vacate. With the express finding that "there is no reversible error in the order complained of" the appellate court affirmed. Peterson then filed the present action on that judgment in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. Appellants answered, denying the validity of the foreign judgment, and contended both that the Virginia court had no jurisdiction, and that the judgment was the result of a conspiracy between Peterson's Virginia lawyer and defendants' Virginia lawyer who had been retained by their Georgia attorney, as a result of which the lawyer failed to appear at the jury trial wherein the damages were assessed.

Peterson moved for judgment on the pleadings and was granted a summary judgment, from which defendants appeal.

The appellants' brief in this court urges that the questions for decision are whether (a) they were properly served in the Virginia action, and (b) whether they are now entitled to assert by cross action that the Virginia judgment was obtained by fraud, i.e. a conspiracy between their Virginia counsel and that of the plaintiff.

As to service, the trial court in Virginia explicitly found that there was service under Virginia's long arm statute ( 8-81.3 of the 1950 Code of Va. as amended). This was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The statute has been held constitutional: Snow v. Clark, 263 FSupp. 66. Nothing in the record before us indicates that the judgment would be void for any reason; it is accordingly entitled to full faith and credit, and is not subject to collateral attack. Dyal v. Dyal, 187 Ga. 600 (1 SE2d 660).

Judgment affirmed. Eberhardt, P. J., and Stolz, J., concur.