#### Clark and Jackson *against*Benjamin Custard.

ON CERTIORARI.

ANDERSON attorney of plaintiff.

Suit on judgment, (a)

Record proved.

(a)

**Can judgments of Justices’ Courts of other States be certified under the Acts of Congress ? *Chandler vs. Gordon, Pen. *658. Godfrey vs. Myers, 3 Zab. 197.*

Opinion of the Court by

Southard J.

It is not very easy to comprehend the *°*. , m this case, but the amount of it *seems*to be this: Qn 20th of *November*1817, the justice issued what he calls a citation, which the constable served the 12th,'“by leaving a copy at the place of abode of the defendant, with a white person of the family above the age of fourteen years-, and made known the contents thereof.” On the return day, the plaintiff appeared and “ *filed *his demand.”*Defendant did not appear,-and the, justice, without further proceedings, says: “ I give judgment in favour of plaintiff on a transcript of *Israel Brinsley,*esq. for the sum of eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents, with costs, being one dollar and eleven cents; together 84 dollars, 44 cents, with cost of this suit, 53 cents.” The state of demand, filed by the plaintiff, is not sent up, unless it be the transcript of justice *Brinsley’s*docket, and this seems to be in an “ unknown tongue.” If, with very considerable labour, I have been able, correctly to decipher it, it is in the words, though by no means in the orthography following: viz.

“ *Benjamin Custard*v. *Matthias Clark*and *Henry Jackson, as bail.*Capias issued the 29th day of *August*1817, and returned the 13th day of *September*by *Henry Jackson,*constable. The plaintiff appeared on the- 13th day of *September*1817, and demanded judgment against *Matthias Clark*and *Henry Jackson*as bail, for the sum of 83 dollars, 33 cents, the debt; justices cost, 75 cents. Constable *Jackson’s*fee—.11, Transcript—,25.” Then follows the *239certificate, “ I do hereby certify that the above Statement is a true transcript from my docket, Given from under my hand and seal this third day of *November,*1817 *Israel Brinsley*justice.”

The original process, in the suit before the justice, is not sent up, nor is there any thing by which I can discover, whether it was designed as an action of debt upon the judgment, or as a *scire facias*merely to revive it, and obtain execution. If the latter, it is irregular. The judgment of justice *Brinsley*was rendered in *Pennsylvania.*No *scire facias*lies here, to revive a judgment rendered there, (a) But whether designed as a *scire facias*or not, it is utterly erroneous.

1. This record, was in- no way proved or certified, as required by law, where the records of one state are to be used in another. It was, therefore, inadmissible.

2. It is no judgment, nor such an instrument as can legally operate at all. Defendants are improperly united in the action; one of them seems to be the constable, into whose hands the *capias*was put, and who demanded the judgment. It does not appear that the writ was ever served, or that *Glark,*one of the defendants, ever had notice, or appeared at all. (b) There is no judgment or expression of opinion, by the court, as to the justice or *propriety of the plaintiff’s claim. I know not what such a paper would be .called in the state from which it came, but we have here no name by which to call it. It can never be the foundation of a legal proceeding, or judgment in a court of law.

Judgment reversed.

(a)

*Tindall vs. Carson, 1 Har. 94.*

(b)

*Ford vs. Munson, ante 93.*