# Caperton v. Ballard/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 238
Caperton v. Ballard
This court has repeatedly declared that it is only under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act that it takes cognizance of error committed in the highest courts of a State. There must be a Federal question, within the terms of that section, to enable us to review the decision of a State tribunal. Is there such a question here?
It is argued that a constitutional provision has been disregarded, because the courts in West Virginia did not give proper effect to the letters granted in 1863 by the court of a county which at that time formed a part of Virginia, but which, when the subsequent letters were granted, and this suit was tried, had become incorporated into West Virginia.
It may be conceded that the decision on this subject could be reviewed, if the record showed a state of case in which this provision of the Constitution was applicable, but in the absence of this we cannot consider the point, whatever may be the hardship of this particular suit. The same constitutional provision which ordains 'that full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,' also ordains that 'the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.' Congress acted on this subject, and on the 26th of May, 1790, prescribed the manner in which judicial records, and the proceedings of the courts of any State shall be authenticated, so as to be considered proved and admitted in any other court in the United States. This act declares further that the said records and judicial proceedings, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every other court within the United States as they have by law, or usage, in the courts of the State from whence the said records are or shall be taken. The mode of authentication prescribed by the law requires the attestation of the clerk with his seal attached, and the certificate of the judge that the attestation was in due form. If a judicial proceeding has the effect of record evidence in the courts of the State from which it is taken, it has the same effect in the courts of every other State. To receive this conclusive effect, however, it must not only be pleaded but proved in conformity with the act of Congress on the subject. Unless this is done there is nothing for this court to act upon.
It is only through the instrumentality of the statute that the clause of the Constitution, which the plaintiff in error relies on, can be invoked for his protection. Legislation was required to make the constitutional provision effective, and this having been done by a general law, it requires no argument to show that a party cannot claim that a right under the Constitution and law has been denied him by a State court, unless he has used the means for his protection which the statute directs.
This the plaintiff in error failed to do. He relied for his justification upon letters of administration granted in 1863 by the County Court of Monroe County, while it was a part of Virginia, but did not furnish the legal evidence required to establish the existence of the record. It would seem that in Virginia, the tribunals intrusted with probate business were designated by the name of County Courts, while in West Virginia the Circuit Courts of each county were empowered to grant letters of administration. Doubtless the County Court records of Monroe County were transferred to the custody of the clerk of the Circuit Court, after West Virginia was admitted into the Union. This is fairly inferable from the fact that the only evidence offered to the grant of letters in 1863 was the transcript of the records of the County Court, under the hand of Lewis Callaway, styling himself clerk of the Monroe County Circuit Court.
This proof, if received by the State court as sufficient to establish the record of a judicial proceeding in Monroe County, while a part of Virginia, lacked the formalities required by the act of Congress. The seal of the County Court was wanting, as well as the certificate of the presiding magistrates. It will not do to say that they could not be procured on account of the anomalous condition in which the records of the county were placed by the change of jurisdiction. There is nothing to show that any effort was made to supply the omission. In fact the case does not seem to have been tried in reference to the conclusive effect of the judgments of one State in the courts of another. It rather seems to have been tried on the theory that the judgment was void because the court granting the letters was disloyal. Indeed, neither in the pleading nor proof is the particular provision of the Constitution on this subject relied on. It is certainly not set up in words, nor from the pleading itself could an inference even be drawn that Monroe County in 1866 was not in the same State as in 1863. It is only through the history of the country that we ascertain this fact.
It may be that the attention of the court below was called to the conclusive effect of judicial proceedings under the Constitution and laws of Congress, but if so, there is nothing in the record to show it. It is, doubtless, unfortunate that the plaintiff in error did not in proper terms set up the right he now claims, and conform his proof to the requirements of the law. If he had done so, and the decision had been adverse to him, he could have had it reviewed here, although the question would still arise whether the constitutional provision concerning the effect of judgments of different States would be applicable on account of the transfer of Monroe County to the jurisdiction of West Virginia. As the case is, the Federal question is not presented at all, and the writ of error must be
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse