Case ID: mich_46/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cooley, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bartley Campbell v. Frank K. Wallace.
    
      Justices’ cow'ts — OeHified tianscript — Identity of defendant.
    
    A properly certified transcript of a justice’s judgment rendered in another State on personal service and appearance, is sufficient evidence of the justice’s jurisdiction. Oomp. Laws § 5988.
    The identity of a person sued on a transcript of a foreign judgment may he presumed if his full name is identical with that of the party against whom it was recovered.
    Error to Wayne.
    Submitted June 16.
    Decided June 22.
    Certiorari to a justice to bring up proceedings in a suit upon a transcript of judgment. Defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Charles E. Miller for plaintiff in error.
    Where former conviction is to be proved the identity of the convict must be shown: McCarthy's Case 42 Mich. 71; the courts of Michigan have no judicial knowledge of the statute law of Illinois: Thomas v. Robinson 3 Wend. 267; a judgment of another court cannot be treated as valid unless it appears that the court had jurisdiction: McEwam v. Zimmer 38 Mich. 765; delegated powers cannot be made a basis for a judgment until it appears that they were delegated actually: Hebert v. Bulte 42 Mich. 491; Goodrich v. Burdick 26 Mich. 39.
    
      Douglass & Bowen for defendant in error.
   Cooley, J.

The assignments of error in this case are frivolous. The suit was brought upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in the State of Illinois, and the transcript showed personal service and a personal appearance. The objections to a recovery upon the judgment there rendered are — Ewst, that no proof is given of the identity of the party now sued with the party sued in Illinois; and second, that the laws of Illinois are not put in evidence to show that the justice in that State had jurisdiction of the case. The first finds no support in Bennett v. Libhart 27 Mich. 489, to which our attention was called, for the name of the party sued here was identical with that of the party against whom the judgment was recovered,, which was not the case there. The second is answered by the statute, Comp. L. § 5933, which makes the transcript: properly certified sufficient evidence. No defect was pointed* out in the certificates here.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.