Case ID: tenn_16/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Catron, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ferrel, et al. vs Finch.
    Where the record of a judgment of the county court, recited, “that ort motion, and it appearing to the court that T had become bound for B, as security, in the court of pleas and quarter sessions of Franklin county, for an appeal to the circuit court, in the case wherein J. S. was plaintiff, and J. B. defendant; that T had become bound to pay the sum of two hundred and forty-nine dollars, twenty.-two cents, the amount of judgment obtained by J. T. against B and T, as security, by the judgment of the circuit court. It is therefore considered,” &c.: Held, that the facts stated were sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court and validity to the judgment; without reciting that a copy of the record and judgment of the circuit court against-B and T, duly authenticated was presented to the court.
    When a court of competent jurisdiction states a fact in its judgment, as appearing, it must he presumed that such fact was established by competent and proper evidence; and the evidence of the fact need not be stated.
    This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, to recover the value of a negro slave named George, which the said plaintiffs in error had purchased, as they alleged, from one James Brown. The defendant in error having sold the slave as sheriff, justified under an execution issued in favor of Micah Taul, against said James Brown. The judgment upon which said execution issued was recovered by Tauhn the Irankhn county court upon motion, and recites, “On motion, and it appearing to the court, that Taul had become bound for Brown, as security in the court of pleas and quarter sessions of Franklin cqunty, for an appeal to the circuit court, in the case wherein .T. Thompson was-plaintiff, and J. Brown defendant; that Taul had become bound to pay the sum of two hundred and forty-nine dollars and twenty-two cents, the amount of the judgment obtained by Thompson against Brown and Taul as security, by the judgment of the circuit court. It is therefore ordered, that said Micah Taul recover, &c. against Brown, &c.” The circuit court, among other things not excepted to, charged the jury, “that the judgment recovered by Taul against Brown, on motion, was not void, but was valid, and authorized the issuance of the execution thereon, under which the defendant acted. ” To this charge the plaintiff in error excepted, and the jury having rendered a verdict for the defendant, and a new trial being moved for and refused, the plaintiffs appealed in the nature of a writ of, error to this court.
    
      James Campbell and II. L. Taney, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      M. Taul and W. E. Anderson, for defendant in error.-
    It is not perceived upon what ground the validity of the judgment can be questioned.
    All the facts which were necessary to bring the cases within'the act of 1809, ch. 69, sec. 1, H. & Cobb. 303, so as to authorize a judgment in favor of Taul vsABroWn, are stated in the judgment, as being ¡satisfactorily proved to the court.
    In judgments of this kind, “The court need only state' ■the facts, conferring jurisdiction without stating the evidence of the facts.” 2 Tenn. Rep. 217, 218, quoted W Chief Justice Catron, in Hamilton vs. Burum, 3 Yerg. 363.
    ln the same case, 361, Judge Green says, “If the judgment show upon its face the facts necessary to give it validity, it would not be necessary on a trial of this sort, to go behind that judgment to show the facts upon which it was founded.
   Catron, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment against Taul and Brown having been obtained in the circuit court, and the judgment by motion having been rendered 'by the county court, it is insisted this judgment is void, because it does not recite that there was produced to the county court a copy of the record or judgment of the circuit court legally authenticated; the evidence required by the act of 1801, ch. 15, in cases of motions in different courts from the one in which the judgment against the security was had.

The act of 1809, ch. 69, by force of which this judgment was entered up, does riot prescribe the evidence to be adduced; as the record is the only competent evidence however, to establish the fact of an existing, unsatisfied judgment, the same evidence must be adduced in each case. But in the language of the majority of the court, in Hamilton vs. Burum, ( 3 Yerg. Rep. 361,) “If the judgment show upon its face the facts necessary to give it validity, it would not be necessary in a trial of this sort, to go behind that judgment, to show the evidence upon which it is founded.” When a court of competent jurisdiction states a fact in its judgment as appearing, it must be presumed that such fact was established by competent and proper evidence: and the evidence of the fact need not be stated. (3 Yerg. Rep. 363, and authorities cited.) The judgment of Taul against Brown was in due form, and justified the execution, levy and sale; and there being no error in the record the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.