Case ID: miss_18/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Clayton", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel Dorsey et al. vs. James H. Maury.
    The several states of this Union are each sovereign and independent, and their relations are those of foreign slates in close friendship, in regard to all matters not surrendered to the general government; and but for the act of congress, the judgments of each state would be regarded as foreign judgments in every other.
    The judgments of the courts of the United States, must be construed to be embraced in the act of congress, as to the authentication of judgments, or they must be esteemed as foreign judgments; in either case, the judgment must be properly authenticated.
    In a suit, therefore, in this state, the certificate of a discharge in bankruptcy, by the clerk of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, under the seal of the court, is inadmissible in evidence, without the authentication of the clerk’s certificate by the judge.
    A new trial will not be granted, because the party was ignorant of the legal effect of a record which he relied on as evidence ; the fact, therefore, that he was ignorant that the records of judgments of the courts of the United States, must be authenticated, according to the act of congress, and, therefore, went to trial, relying on a record of one of those courts not so authenticated, will be no ground to entitle him to a new trial.
    In error from the circuit court of Claiborne county; Hon. Stanhope Posey, judge.
    James H. Maury sued Samuel Dorsey and Edward H. Dorsey, in the circuit court, on a note: the latter defendant plead, that he had been discharged as a bankrupt, under the act of congress; issue being taken on the plea on the trial, the defendant offered in evidence, the certificate of his discharge by the district court of the eastern district of Louisiana, given under the seal of the court by the clerk, but not otherwise authenticated. The court below excluded the certificate, and the jury found for the plaintiff.
    The defendants moved for a new trial, and filed an affidavit, stating, that, being sued on the note from which he had been .discharged by his bankruptcy, he employed no counsel to defend it, but filed his own plea of bankruptcy, and had his certificate ready in court at the trial, and never knew that it was necessary that it should have the judge’s authentication, which he could procure by the next term of the court.
    The motion being overruled, he prosecuted this writ of error.
    
      L. N. Baldwin, for plaintiff in error.
    1. The act of congress relates to state court judgments and records, not United States court records; the latter are evidence all over the Union.
    2. A new trial should have been granted. The affidavit shows that manifest injustice has been done.
    
      James H. Maury, in proper person.
    1. If the record of a judgment is offered in evidence, in a court of another state from that in which it was rendered, it must be a record of the entire case; and a record of detached portions of the proceedings, such as a certificate of discharge in bankruptcy, will not be admitted. This is a general rule, and supported by many reasons that are obvious. Norris’s Peake, 63 ; Buller’s N. P. 228 ; Gilb. 24.
    2. There is no case to be found, in which it is decided, that the record of a judgment of a foreign country, or of a sister state, or of a court of the United States, sitting in a sister state, is sufficiently authenticated by the bare certificate of the clerk. His official character is not recognized by the courts of other states. The clerk must be certified to be such, by the judge of the court of which he is the clerk, or by some functionary of recognized authority. 2 Hawks, N. C. R. 44; Peters, G. C. R. 353; 1 Hay. 359; 2 Wend. 411; 3 John. Ch. 125 ; 17 John. 272; 1 Wend. 131.
    3. In the state of Louisiana, it is decided, that the records of judicial proceedings in the courts of the United States, sitting in another state, are not sufficiently authenticated by the certificate of the clerk ; and that his official character must be also established by some authority, to make it admissible evidence in the courts of that state. 11 Rob. L. R. 429.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only legal question in this case, is, whether a certificate of a discharge in bankruptcy, by the clerk of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, under the seal of the court, was admissible in evidence, without an authentication of the clerk’s certificate by the judge.

The judgment of a court of the United States is not in terms embraced in the act of congress, regulating the mode of authentication of judgments of the several state courts. H. & H. 791. The several states are each sovereign and independent, and their relations are those of foreign states in close friendship, in regard to all matters not surrendered to the general government. 1 Greenl. Ev. 565. But for the act of congress, the judgments of each state would be regarded as foreign judgments in every other.

The judgments of the courts of the United States, must be construed to be embraced in this act, or must be esteemed as foreign judgments, when offered as evidence in the court of a state, other than that in which they were rendered. In either case, an authentication of the clerk’s certificate is necessary. 1 Greenl. Ev. 585. Thq only ground upon which any other construction could rest, is the assumed consolidation of all the states, in reference to the judicial system of the general government. This was not contemplated by the constitution.

The court did not err in rejecting this certificate. The affidavit for a new trial shows no sort of diligence to guard against the alleged surprise. Every one is chargeable with a knowledge of the law; the ignorance of the plaintiff in error, is the only ground on which the new trial is claimed. To recognize the validity of such claim, would introduce an unwarranted indulgence.

Judgment affirmed.