Case ID: miss_14/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Teacher", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin S. Carson vs. John Doe, ex dem. Robert Huntington.
    In an action of ejectment, in which the lessor of the plaintiff claims through a purchase at sheriff’s sale, a certified copy of the judgment, and a certified copy of the venditioni exponas, under which the land was sold, are the only parts of the record that need be introduced, to uphold the sheriff’s deed.
    In error, from the Leake county circuit court; Hon. Morgan L. Fitch, judge.
    John Doe, on the demise of Robert Huntington, sued Martin S. Carson, in an action of ejectment, to recover the possession of some lands in Leake county.
    As the decision of the court turned on a single point, the facts with reference to that will only be stated.
    Huntington claimed title to the premises by virtue of a purchase under execution, on a: judgment rendered in the Madison circuit court, in favor of Grant & Barton against John S. Gooch. At the trial he read to the jury, in support of his title, the certified copy from the circuit clerk’s office of Madison county, of the declaration filed in that court by Grant & Barton against James J. Spencer and John S. Gooch, founded upon a bill of exchange; the writ which issued upon it, and which was duly executed, and the judgment by default taken against the defendants ; and two writs of fieri facias, one of which, to Leake county, was levied on the land in controversy, as the property of Gooch. These proceedings were duly certified by the clerk of the Madison circuit court, to be regularly copied from the records in his office.
    The lessor of the plaintiff then read a certified copy of the venditioni exponas, directed to the sheriff of Leake county, with the return on it of the purchase by himself.
    To the admission of these exemplifications of the record, as evidence, the defendant objected; his objection being overruled, and a judgment being entered for the lessor of the plaintiff, the defendant prosecuted this writ of error; and now assigns as error, the admission of these copies of the record, as evidence to the jury.
    
      W. Yerger, for plaintiff in error.
    No copy of a record is evidence, unless it contain a certificate that it is a copy of the whole record. By an inspection of the certificate in this case, it will be seen that it does not purport even to be a copy of the record, but merely of certain ft. fas. &c., which had issued in the cause. It was, therefore, clearly inadmissible, and for this cause the judgment of the court below will be reversed.
    Huntington, in proper person.
    1. On the informalities in the certified copy of the judgment and preliminary proceedings, cited 2 How. 786; Woodcock v. Bennett, 1 Cow. 711; 3 How. 66, and cases cited ; 4 Ibid. 269-271; 5 Ibid. 548; SchrocJc v. Bowden, 4 Ibid. 426; Ibid. 377; Jaclcson v. Wallcer, 4 Wend. 462: 12 Ibid. 96; 4 How. 269; Ibid. 270; 8 John. R. 361; 13 Ibid. 537; Dorland v. Borland, 5 Cow. 417; Caines v. Smith, 8 John. R. 337; 3 Wend. 382; 5 Hill, 571.
    2. On the point that the record was exemplified in two parts; Coper v. State, 3 How. 429, 430; Paclchard v. Hill, 7 Cow. 434.
    
      William Thompson, on same side.
   Mr. Justice Teacher

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action of ejectment instituted in the Leake county circuit court. Huntington claimed title to the land in question, by virtue of a purchase under a sheriff’s sale. The bill of exceptions shows a copy of the judgment duly certified by the clerk, and also a copy of the venditioni exponas, under which the purchase of the land was made by Huntington. The sole objection made here is, that the evidence to this point was improperly admitted, because no copy of a record is evidence unless it contain a certificate of the proper officer that it is a copy of the whole record. A copy of the judgment, and of the venditioni exponas emanating from that judgment, constitute all that is necessary in a case of the kind before us, to be introduced from the record of the suit. These copies, having been separately certified by the clerk, were properly admitted as evidence. 3 How. 429.

Judgment affirmed.