Case ID: scl_4/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Trezevant, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1807.
    Stevelie v. Lowry.
    In trespass to try titles, where the plaintiff claimed by a conveyance from the sheriff, by virtue of a sale under execution, and gave in evidence an authenticated copy of the judgmeut, in pursuance of which the execution issued, and offered the original execution in evidence, which was objected to; it was adjudged that such evidence was admissible.
    Trespass to try titles, tired before Wilds, J., in Pendleton district. The plaintiff claimed under a sale and conveyance from the sheriff of-district, and produced in’ support of his title, a copy of the proceedings in the case mentioned in the sheriff’s deed, by which it appeared that judgment was recovered in that case in the former district of Washington; which proceedings were certified by the clerk of Greenville district, keeper of the records of the courts of the former district of Washington ; and produced, and offered in evideuce, an original writ of fia. fa., corresponding with, the said judgment, and the recital in the sheriff’s deed of conveyance of the fi. fa., by virtue of which he sold the land in question.. This evidence was rejected, on the ground that an original execui tion is only admissible when offered to a court of which it is of record, and can only be legally known to form a part of the record; exemplified when certified by the officer appointed by law to com» pare the same with the original, and certify it; and that parol evidence °f its identity was not admissible, it being in its nature capa» ble of other and higher proof.
    r|'jie plaintiff suffered a nonsuit; and it was moved to set the same aside in this court, for mistake of the presiding judge. The motion was argued by Taylor, Solictor of the western circuit, who contended that the original execution ought to have been admitted. That it was the highest evidence, and the best the case admitted of; and that although an authenticated copy was admissible in evidence, it was inferior to the original, and if the original can be produced, it ought to be preferred. Peak Evid. 23. 2 Bac. Abr. 313.
    Bowie, E contra.
    
   Trezevant, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court,

(all the judges present.)

That the original writ of fi. fa. being a record, ought to have been admitted in evidence, and that it was the province of the court to inspect it, and compare it with the other proceedings exemplified, and decide whether it was a part pf those proceedings or not.

New trial granted.