Case ID: scl_2/html/0555-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Judge, (Grimke,)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duncan M‘Farlane against William Henry Harrington.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1804.
    Where papers purporting to he records and. proceedings in a cause in Worth Carolina, are trans-mittediw/AoK* the seal of the court inlohich they are pen« ding,wa<er-%ch‘e court Cannot 1)e received or read m any of the courts of South fíuroli. na.
    
    ofa judge on á ofPpaplrfand not on the proceedings themselves, is irregular.
    SPECIAL action on the case, commenced in Chesterfield district, for causing plaintiff' to be imprisoned and tried for murder, without probable cause of prosecution, in North Carolina.
    To this declaration there ivas a plea in bar, setting forth 1 ’ ® that there was a suit depending in North Carolina, by the . iri r plaintiff against defendant, tor the same cause of action, which was still undetermined; and in support of this plea, sundry papers and certificates, purporting to be the record of the proceedings of one of the supreme courts of record r ° 1 ,. in that state in the said cause, were produced and offered to the court. To these papers and proceedings, Mr. Falconer, as counsel for the plaintiff, took several exceptions, and contended that they should not be read, as, among other things, they were not certified in the manner di« reeted by the act of congress, in that case made and provided.
   When the presiding

Judge, (Grimke,)

having great doubts upon the subject, directed that they should all be brought up to this court, for the opinion of all the-Judges on the point of their regularity and admissibility in thé courts in this state. Which being inspected and examined, it appeared that they were not certified under the seal of the court -where the suit -was depending, nor was it certified that such court was without ■ a seal; and further, that the certificate of the Judge was not on the proceedings themselves, giving them authenticity, but on a separate piece of paper, which formed no part of such proceedings.

For these defects and irregularities, the Judges were unanimously of opinion they could not be received as evidence of the commencement and existence of a suit between the same parties, for the same cause of action.

But in order that defendant should not be deprived of the benefit of his plea, that day should be given, and time allowed to him, to send for, and obtain the necessary documents properly authenticated, agreeable to the act of congress.

All the Judges present,