« 이전계속 »
579; Lapham v. Briggs, 1 Williams, 29: Bank of North America v.
Wheeler, 24 Conn. 433. How are 219. CONGRESS MAY PRESCRIBE THE MANNER OF PROVING.acts of the
The mode of proof prescribed under this clause has been as fol
lows:cateit? " The acts of the legislatures of the several States shall be Act of
authenticated by having the seal of their respective States afMay 26,
fixed thereto : That the records and judicial proceedings of the 1790, 1 St.
courts of any State shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the
seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a cer. Judicial tificate of the judge, chief-justice, or presiding magistrate, as the proceed case may be, that the said attestation is in due form. And the ings!
said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them, in every court within the United States, as they have. by law or usage, in the courts of the State from whence the said records are or shall be
taken." Paschal's Annotated Dig., Art. 3709. What does The seal of the State imports absolute verity. The United the seal of
States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 407; The United States v. import?
Johns, 4 Dall. 416. And is prima fucie evidence that the officer
who used it had competent authority to act. No other authentica218.
tion is necessary than the seal of the State. Id. The usual attes. tation of the enactment and signature is not necessary. United States v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 408. It is sufficient that their exist. ence and time of enactment is shown. Id. It must be certitied under the seal of the State. Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 354. The laws of a State may be thus certified and proved. But private laws, and special proceedings of a judicial character, are matters of fact, and must be proven in the ordinary manner. Leland v. Wilk. inson, 6 Pet. 317, 322. A statute book of a State, in the State De. partment at Washington, may be read as evidence of the law. The Commercial & Farmers' Bank of Baltimore v. Patterson, 2 Cr. C. C.
347. How are
Under the Constitution and this section, a judgment recovered in judgments any State of the Union, before a court of competent jurisdiction, proved ?
upon due notice to the defendant, is not to be regarded in any other 218. State as a foreign, but as a domestic judgment, throughout the United
States, so far as to give it the same effect in every other State. Baxley v. Dinah, 27 Penn. State R. (4 Harris), 242, 247. And the State court will take notice of the local laws, upon which the judg. ment was rendered, in the same manner as the Supreme Court of the United States does. 17 Cr. 408; 3 Wheat. 234; Baxley v.
Dinah, 27 Penn. State R. (4 llarris), 243.) State of Ohio v. certify the clerk's sig.
Hinchman, 27 Penn. State R. (4 Harris), 483; Rogers v. Burns, Id. 526. And if the certificate state that it is in “due form," it mat. ters not that the judge and the clerk of the probate court were the same person. Id. But as a surrogate acts as a clerk, in certifying his proceedings, and as he also acts in the capacity of judge, he must certify as to the authentication. (Catlin v. Underhill, 4 NeLean, 190.) Ohio v. Hinchman, 27 Penn. State R. 484. So that it results that when the judgment of a court of record is proved under
the act of Congress, the court where it is produced will take the 466. same notice of the laws of the State from which it comes, that the court which rendered the judgment, or the Supreme Court of the United States would take. Id. This rule seems only to apply to courts of general jurisdiction. 1 Greenl. Ev. $ 506. It does not apply to judgments rendered before a justice of the peace, when not courts of record. (Cow. & Hill's Notes to Phillips's Ev. Part 2, note 58.) Beal v. Smith, 14 Tex. 309; Grant v. Bledsoe, 20 Tex; 458; Snyder v. Wyse, 10 Barr, 157; Warren v. Flagg, 2 Pick. 448; Robinson v. Prescott, 4 N. H. 450; Mahuren v. Blackford, 6 N. H. 567; Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 Ohio, 545; Thomas v. Robin. son, 3 Wend. 267. Unless they be courts of record. Bissell v. Edwards, 5 Day, 363; Blodget v. Jordan, 6 Verm. 580; Starkweather v. Loomis, 2 Verm. 573; Scott v. Cleveland, 3 Monr. 62. But the proceedings of courts of chancery and probate, as well as How may of common law, may be thus proved. State of Ohio v. Hinchman, chancery 27 Penn. State R. (4 Harris), 243 ; Scott v. Blanchard, 8 Mart. (N. be proved
proceedings S.) 106; Balfour v. Chew, 5 Id. 517; Johnson v. Runnells, 6 Id. 621: Ripple v. Ripple, 1 Rawle, 381; Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. ('. 352; Hunt v. Lyle, 8 Yerg. 142; Barbour v. Watts, 2 A. K. Marsh, 290, 293. Other judicial proceedings besides judgments are included. Hopkins v. Ludlow, Phila. R. 272.
** OF ANY STATE," does not apply to the records of the courts of What means the United States. Mason v. Lawrence, 1 Cr. C. C. 190. But the of any
State po same rule of proof is applicable to these courts. Tucker v. Thompson, 3 McLean, 94. And may be proved by like certificates. Buford v. Hickman, Hemp. 232. This method of proof is not exclusive of any other which the States may prescribe. Ohio v. Hinch. man, 24 Penn. State R. 485; Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. 203, 208; Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. 293 ; The State v. Stade, 1 D. Chipm. 303; Biddle v. James, 6 Binn. 321; Ex parte Poval, 3 Leigh, 816; Ellmore v. Mills, 1 Hayw. 359; Baker v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Cases, 119. The clerk who certifies the record, must be the clerk of the same court, or of its successor ; the certificate of his under clerk, in his absence, or the clerk of any other court or tribunal, is insufficient. Sampson v. Overton, 4 Bibb, 409; Lathorp v. Blake, 3 Barr, 405; Donahoo v. Brannon, 1 Overton, 328; Schnertzell v. Young, 3 H. & McHen. 502. Where the clerk certified under the seal of the court, that he was clerk; and the judge certified that his attestation was in due form, no other evidence of the usual form of attestation can be received. Harper v. Nichol, 13 Tex. 16). When the court has no seal, the fact should be certified by the court or the judge. Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 353. The seal must be annexed to the record itself; not to the judge's certificate. What judge Turner v. Waddington. 3 W. C. Ć. 126. The certificate to the must clerk's attestation must be given by the judge, if there be but one;
certify ? or if there be more than one, then by the chief-justice or presiding judge or magistrate of the court from whence the record comes; and he must possess that character at the time he gives the certificate. A certificate that he is the judge who presided at the time of the trial, or that he is the senior judge of the courts of law in the State, is deemed insufficient. Lathorp_v. Blake, 3 Barr, 496; Stephenson v. Bannister, 3 Bibb, 369; Kirkland v. Smith, 2 Mart.
Certificate. (N. S.) 407. And so is the certificate of the judge, styling him.
self one of the judges of the court." Stewart v. Gray, Hemp. What must 94; Catlin v. Underhill, 4 McLean, 199. The certificate of the cate cer the judge must state that the attestation of the clerk is in due form. judge state: Wigg v. Conway, Hemp. 538. Which means, the form of attesta.
tion used in the State from whence the record comes. Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 354. And such certificate of the judge is indis. pensable and conclusive. Ferguson v. Harwood. 7 C. R. 408 : Tooker v. Thompson, 3 McLean, 33; Taylor v. Carpenter, 2 W. & M.4. That the sigpature is in the clerk's handwriting," is not sufficient. Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 352. Where, however, the record of a judgment of a State court is offered in evidence in a circuit court sitting in the same State, the certificate of the clerk, and seal of the court, is a sufficient authentication. Newster v.
Spaulding, 6 McLean, 24. What
А ment of a State court has the same validity, credit, validity has and effect, in every other court within the United States, that the judg.
it had in the State wherein it was recovered; and whaterer pleas would be good in a suit thereon, and none others, can be pleaded in any other court within the United States. Hampton v. McConnell, 3 Wheat. 234; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481; Westerwelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean, 511; Warren Manuf. Co. v. Ætna Ins. Co. 2 Paine, 502; 2 Am. Leading Cases, 774. But the State may enact statutes of limitation, barring such judgment in their courts. McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Bank State of Ala. v. Dalton, 9 How. 522. There must lave been personal appearance, or service of process. D'Arcy v. Kercham, 11 How. 165; Rogers v. Burns, 24 Penn. State R. (3 Casey), 525. Where judgment was rendered in a sister State against an ancillary administrator, it is no foundation for an action, in Texas, against the administrator or heir of the same estate. (Story's Conflict of Laws,
3d ed. S 522 ; Lightfoot v. Birkley, 2 Rawle, 431, 436-7.) Jones What faith v. Jones, 15 Tex. 464. The record, when duly authenticated, and credit ? shall have in every other court of the United States the same faith
and credit as it has in the State court from whence it was taken."
(Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 483) Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 302. Is nil debet Nil debet is not a good plea to such a judgment. Id. 304. a good plea? Nor is fraud as to the promise on which the judgment was ob
tained; nor the manner of obtaining it. (Bank of Australasia v Nias, 4 Eng. Law and Eq. 252.) Id. : Granger v. Clark, 22 Maine, 130; Anderson v. Anderson, 8 Ohio, 108. They cannot be at. tacked collaterally by the parties and privies to the record. B. & W. Railroad v. Sparhawk, 1 Allen, 448; Homer v. Fish, i Pickering, 435; McRae v. Mattoon, 13 Pickering. 57; Atkinsons v. Allen, 12 Vermont, 624 ; Christmas v. Russel, 5 Wall. 306. That is where it appears that the court had jurisdiction of the cause. and that the defendant was duly served with process, or appeared and made defense. (Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheaton, 332: Na. tions et al. v. Johnson et al. 24 Howard, 203: D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 Id. 165; Webster v. Reid, Id. 460.) • Wall. 302. The rule is undeniable that the judgment or decree of a court possessing competent jurisdiction is final, not only as to the subject thereby de.
termined, but as to every other matter which the parties might Conclusivo. have litigated in the cause, and which they might have had decided. (Dobson v. Pearce, 2 Kernan, 165. Hollister v. Abbott, 11 Foster, 448; Rathbone v. Terry, 1 Rhode Island, 77; Topp v. The Bank, 2 Swan, 188; Wall v. Wall, 28 Mississippi, 413.) Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 307.
"1. From and after the passage of this act, all records and ex- Act of emplifications of office books, which are or may be kept in any March 27, public office of any State, not appertaining to a court, shall be
1804, 2 Slat. proved or admitted in any other court or office in any other State, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together What is t.10 with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county inole of or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be proving kept; or of the governor, the secretary of State, the chancellor, judicial or the keeper of the great seal of the State, that the said attes-records ! tation is in due form, and by the proper officer; and the said cer: tificate, if given by the presiding justice of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his band and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified ; or if the said certificate be given by the governor, the secretary of State, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State in which the said certificate is made. And the said records and exemplifications, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States, as they have by law or usage, in the courts or offices of the State from whence the same are or shall be taken.” Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 3710; 1 Brightly's llig. p. 266.
Where a conveyance to lands in Texas was dated on the 14th How are April
. 1838, and executed and recorded before a notary public of civil law the city of New Orleans, La., in accordance with the laws of Louis
pruved? iana, a copy of which was certified by the notary's successor, on the 6th March, 1851; to which was appended the certificate of the judge of the district court of New Orleans, that the certificate was in due form, and by the proper officer; and the official certifi. cate of the clerk of that court, that the judge was such, ihe authentication was in accordance with this act. Watrous v. McGrew, 16 Tex. 509, 512. See Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 508. By that article (Ord. of 22d January, 1836) and the act of the provisional government of Texas, we take judicial notice of the civil code and Code of Practice of Louisiana. Watrous v. McGrew (16 Tex. 512), reviewed and affirmed. Whute v. Burnley, 20 How. 250. It was a civil law conveyance, made in a notary's book, and a copy furnished to the grantee, as a second original. Id. Sworn copies of records in a foreign country can be given in evidence when better evidence cannot be procured. But that they are records, must be shown by other evidence. Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 435. 436. The laws authorizing the record of bills of sale in a foreign country (as Georgia was before annexation), and showing who was the keeper of the records,
ary evidence ?
should also be proven. Id. So where the record of a marriage, solemnized by a justice of the peace in Missouri, was certified under this act, the statute which authorized the justice to solemnize the marriage, should also have been proven: as also
the statute authorizing the registration. Smith v. Smith, 1 Ter. Can records 625, 626. The records are among the public writings recognized be proved by the common law invested with an official character, and there. by second
fore susceptible of proof by secondary means, but which are not of the nature of judicial records or judgments; such as acts and orders of the executive of a State; legislative acts and journals: registers kept in public offices ; books which contain the official proceedings of corporations, if the public at large are concerned with them; parish registers, and the like. Snyder v. Wise, 10 Barr, 158. The certificate must state that the attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer. Drummond v. McGruder, 9 Cr. 122; 1 Burr's Trial, 98.
“ 2. All the provisions of this act, and the act to which this is a March 27,
supplement, shall apply, as well to the public acts, records, office 1804, 2 8. c.
books, judicial proceedings, courts, and officers of the respective territories of the United States, and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as to the public acts, records. office books, judicial proceedings, courts, and offices of the several States." Paschal's Annotated Dig. Art. 3711.
This extension is a constitutional exercise of tlre legislative powers of Congress. Hughes v. Davis, 8 Maryland, 271.
Sec. II.-[1.] The citizens of each State shall be the privileges of entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in citizens
the several States.
220. “THE CITIZENS OF EACH State."-See Confederation.
ante, Art. IV. p. 10. “I find no definition, no authoritative establish. 274, 17, 18. ment of the meaning of the phrase (citizen of the United States),
neither by a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of
our political government." Bates on Citizenship, 3. 10 Op. 383. llow many
It may be deduced from the previous definitions and all the
authorities, that the following classification of " CITIZENS" may the U.S.: satisfy most students :
1. All white persons, or persons of European descent, who were born in any of the colonies, or resided and had been adopted there
before 1776, and who adhered to the cause of independence up to coloniets of the fourth of July, 1776. Paschal's Annotated Digest, notes 147,
148. 239, 240, 350; United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 538; Orson
v. Hoag, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 80–85; Jackson v. White, 20 John, 313; 277.
Inglis v. The Trustees of the Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99:
453. The males of these are eligible to the Presidency. Who of the 2. All the descendants of such persons, who have since been dative born ? born in any of those thirteen States, or in any new Stale or Terri
tory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, or abroad,
Who are citizens?
classes of citizens of
169. What is the rul as to