[¶ 11] Prior to the approval of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act in 1948 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, see Unif. Enft of Foreign Judgments Act prefatory note (Nat’l Conference of Comm’rs on Unif. State Laws 1964), the only method for enforcing a foreign judgment in-most states was through an action on the judgment. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 100 cmt. b (Am. Law Inst. 1971) (stating that “the method usually employed in this country for the enforcement of a foreign judgment for the payment of money is to bring a new action in the nature of debt upon the judgment in the forum State and to obtain á new judgment there”); see also Milwaukee Cty. v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 270-71, 56 S.Ct. 229, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 12] That cause of action for “debt on a
holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims recognizing that pursuant to statute actions of debt may be brought upon any judgment for debt damages or costs rendered in any court of record of the united states holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b recognizing federal district court jurisdiction over suits upon a judgment  which were maintainable at common law upon writ of debt holding that state law claims cannot pend from a federal one over which the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction