Case ID: del_3/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Booth, Chief Justice.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOSEPH GRAHAM, appellant, defendant below vs. GRIGG & MEREDITH, respondents, plaintiffs below.
    Nil debet is a good plea to an action of debt on the judgment of a justice of the peace of another State.
    Such judgment must be proved as at common law, and cannot be authenticated under the act of Congress referring to judicial records.
    Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace.
    The plaintiffs below declared in this court, in debt on a judgment obtained by them in Pennsylvania, against the defendant below, before a certain John Johnson, Esq., an alderman and justice of the peace in and for the county of Philadelphia.
    The defendant pleaded — l. Nultiel record. 2. Nil debet. To the first plea, the plaintiffs took issue; and to the second, demurred generally.
    In support of the issue on their part to the first plea, the plainti: offered in evidence a paper writing, certified under the hand and seall (being a scroll or ink seal,) of the said John Johnson, Esq., to be a true transcript from his docket; and authenticated by the certificate of the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas for the county o: Philadelphia, under the seal of the court, representing that the sai John Johnson was, at the time of rendering the said judgment, a: alderman and justice of the peace of the county of Philadelphia, dul commissioned and qualified, &c., and to whose official acts full fait and credit ought to be given, &c. To this was added the certifica! of Edward King, Esq., president of the first judicial district of Pennsylvania, and presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court, and Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, for the count}' of Philadelphia, stating that the foregoing certifica! and attestation made by the prothonotary of the said Court of Com mon Pleas, under his hand and the seal of the court, were in du form and by the proper officer. Then followed a further certifica! of the prothonotary, under the seal of the court, that the honorable! Edward King, at the time of making his said certificate, was presf dent judge of the first judicial district of Pennsylvania, and presidin judge of the aforesaid courts, duly commissioned and sworn, &c.
    The defendants’ counsel objected to the admissibility of the trans| cript in evidence. This, and the question arising on the demurred were heard before the court at the same time.
    
      Mr. C. G. Ridgely, for the plaintiffs,
    argued, that although court oí justices of the peace of other States may not be considered courts of record, their judgments are judicial proceedings within the meaning of Art. 4, Sec. 1, of the constitution of the United States, and the act of Congress of May 26, 1790; and when duly authenticated, full faith and credit must be given to them in each of the States. He then contended, that the present transcript was sufficiently authenticated.
    In support of the demurrer, he argued that the judgment of a jus* tice’s court of another State, being a judicial proceeding to which full faith and credit must be given, it was in the nature of record evidence, and conclusive of the debt; and therefore nil debet was a bad plea. He cited 7 Crunch 4S1, Mills vs. Duryee; 3 Wheat. 234, Hampton vs. Connell; 6 Wheat. 129, Mayhew vs. Thatcher, 1 Kent jCom. 260-2.
    
      Mr. M. W. Bates, for the defendant,
    argued, that the act of Con* gress does not provide for the authentication of records of justices pf the peace; and, therefore, that the transcript now offered to the court must be proved according to the common law; that if this Ivere the case of a record of the Court of Common Pleas for the lounty of Philadelphia, the certificate of the prothonotary of that lourt, and of judge King, the presiding judge, would, under the act If Congress, be a sufficient authentication; but as the prothonotary Ind judge have no authority to give certificates for the purposes now ■tended, such certificates are no evidence that John Johnson, Esq., I a justice of the peace, or that the alledged transcript certified by im, is a true copy from his docket; that the proper mode of proof li the part of the plaintiffs was to show by a certificate under the ■•eat seal of the State of Pennsylvania, attested by the Secretary of Itate, that John Johnson, Esq., was duly commissioned a justice of Be peace, and then to prove by a witness who had compared it with He original, that the transcript now offered was a true copy from Be justice’s docket. ,
    ■ But supposing the proof offered is sufficient to show that Jphn John-fln was a justice of the peace, and that the transcript is a true copy B>m his docket, it is further incumbent on the plaintiffs to show, that me subject matter of the suit was within the jurisdiction of the jus-9e. This can be done only by the production of the statute of Penn- ■ vania, or an exemplified copy of the statute, creating such juris■tion. (3 Wend. Rep. 267, Thomas vs. Robinson.)
    
    ■Against the demurrer Mr. Bates argued, that courts of justices of the peace of other States are not to be considered as courts of re-1 cord; they do not proceed according to the course of the common I law; and their judgments cannot be regarded as of -higher import [ than judgments of foreign courts. To these the plea of nil debet has I always been-considered a proper plea. And it has been decided in I some of the States, that in debt -on a judgment of a justice’s court in j another State, nil debet is a good plea. (Leigh’s JVC P. 710, n.)
    
   By the Court:

Booth, Chief Justice.

The act of Congress of May 20, 1790,| which provides that the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of one State shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk and the sealj of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with the certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, that the attesta-l tion is in due form; does not, in our opinion, contemplate the authenj tication of judgments of justices of the peace. In a justice’s court! where there 'is no such officer as a clerk, the justice being the judg(| and the only officer, no such attestation and certificate as the act ini tends and prescribes, can be furnished. We have seen a note of th<T case o'f Bissell vs. Edwards, 5 Day’s Conn. Rey. 363, in which it i| said, that in those States where a justice of the peace holds a couil of record; where he is the sole justice and has no clerks, he maf certify that he is the presiding magistrate and clerk of the court; tha there is no seal; and that the attestation is in the usual form, copy of his record thus certified, it is said, would be admissible if evidence. Whatever respect may be paid to this decision, it is suj ficient to remark, that the present case does not come within it. Tb transcript here is certified according to the act of Congress of th 27th of March, 1804, which provides the mode of authenticating nj cords and exemplifications of office books not appertaining to a cour but such authentication affords no proof that John Johnson is a jul tice of the peace, or that the transcript is a true copy from his dockr The plaintiffs ought to have furnished proof on these points, accol ding to the common law rules of evidence. Not having done s| they fail on the plea of nul tiel record.

The judgments of justices of the peace of other States are not j be considered of greater dignity than the judgments of foreign courl and therefore, it is our opinion that in an action of debt brought f this State, on a judgment' obtained before a justice of the peace of another State, nil debet is¡a proper plea.

C. G. Ridgely, for plaintiffs below.

M. W, Bates, for defendant below.

Judgment for defendant below.