Case ID: scl_16/html/0417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice, Johnson.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hardy Gregory vs. Stephen Williams.
    
      Plaintiff offered in evidence transcripts properly attested, of proceedings in the County and Superior Courts of North-Carolina, containing a writ, several interlocutory orders, continuances, memorandum of a verdict and “ judgment affirmed f and execution at length; but no contract or cause of action was set forth; Held that these transcripts should have been received as evidence of a judgment,
    
    
      Plaintiff also offered a copy of a bond, aitesed by the clerk of the county court, as the cause of action on which the proceedings were founded; no connection between them appearing on the transcripts: H Id inadmissible.
    
    The plaintiff declared in assumpsit, for money paid, laid out and expended, &c. To support the count, the plaintiff offered in evidence an exemplification of proceedings of the county court of Onslow, in the state of North Carolina, in a case, wherein the governor, for the use of the administrator tíf A. B. Gregory, was plaintiff, and the parties to this action were defendants. It consists of the original writ and of a transcript from the dockets of the court, beginning at January Term '1812, and terminating at October term following^ It contains the orders of the court, at each term, in reference to the case, and annexed to the last, is the following: “ jury charged, found for the plaintiff ,f 141, 44 and costs; appeal prayed and granted” — subjoined to this, is the bond of the parties, with J. ‘ Shackleford and James Phelyen, securities, conditioned to prosecute the appeal in the superior court for Onslow county. This proceeding1 is attested by the clerk and certified by the judges of that court, in conformity with the act of congress. The plaintiff also offered in evidence an exemplification of the superior court for Onslow county, also properly certified and attested; which also consisted of a transcript of the dockets,, beginning" with March term, 1813,. and ending with March term, 1817. The following is the entry of the íást term,'« refer-; red to Daniel Ambrose, Edward Williams and.&ilas Carter, who find an award of four hundred dollars in favor of the plaintiff; judgment therefor according to the award and costs. On motion, judgment affirmed against the security fer she appeal” Then follows an execution against the parties to this action and their securities, for the amount of the award and costs; on which the sheriff returns that $35.8 20, of that amount was paid by the plaintiff in this action.
    The plaintiff’s counsel stated that these proceedings were founded on a bond, entered into by the plaintiff and defendant, as the securities of one Thomas Malmsberry, for the faithful» discharge of the duties of the office of constable for Onslow county; and exhibited the copy of'such a bond, certified, by the clerk of Onslow county on a separate sheet of paper, but there was nothing apparent on the proceedings, which, shewed any connection between them.
    The presiding judge, being of opinion that inasmuch as. the exemplification did not set out any cause of action, either in the form of contract or by declaration, it was too indefinite to be received in evidence, and sustained a motion by defendant’s council to reject it; and nonsuited. the plaintiff.
    A motion- was now made to set aside the nonsuit, on the ' ground that this exemplification ought to have been admitted in evidence.
   The opinion of the court was delivered ip

Mr. Justice, Johnson.

The attestations of the clerks of the courts, from which.those proceedings come, and the certificates of the judges are in strict accordance with the acts of congress, regulating the. admission of the judicial proceedings of one state in, the courts, of the others; and the only question is whether those exhibited in this case contain intrinsically any thing destructive of the end for which they were offered.

It is true, that they are very different in form from those used in this state; but from'necessity, each state must be left to. its own mode of proceeding; and we have the highest authority, (the certificates of the judges), that these are in conformity with the mode of proceeding prescribed in North-Carolina. We ■cannot therefore look into them for the purpose of criticizing them; but must take them as we find them, and give effect to whatever is adjudged.

If we test these proceedings by this rule, it will clearly follow that they ought not' to have been rejected. They exhibit a formal writ, by which the parties were brought into court, with divers interlocutory orders and continuances down to the judgment of the county, court; an appeal from that judgment to the superior court and the final process of that court,, founded on its judgment; and we are bound to give it its legal Operation.

The copy of the bond, unconnected with other proceedings, was clearly inadmissible; but I am unable to discover that it was indispensably necessary to the plaintiff’s case — a judgment against several, is prima facie evidence of a joint debt, unless the contrary appears from the record itself; and if one pay the whole amount, he may as in other cases of joint contract, recover against the others their rateable proportions. The onus of showing that it was the individual debt of the plaintiff, lies on the defendant. The bond was not therefore necessary to the plaintiff’s recovery; although if connected with the record, it might have repelled any evidence ofleredbythe defendant on this question. Motion granted.