Case Name: Harry Spencer, impleaded with Jonathan Sprague v. Paul Fish for the use of Henry E. Smith
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1880-04-08
Citations: 43 Mich. 226
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Spencer, impleaded with Jonathan Sprague v. Paul Fish for the use of Henry E. Smith.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 226–229

Head Matter:
Harry Spencer, impleaded with Jonathan Sprague v. Paul Fish for the use of Henry E. Smith.
Dismissal of writ of error — Settlement of bill of exceptions — Certificate of acknowledgment.
k writ of error to bring up a judgment against joint parties should be taken out in the name of all, and if any do not wish to prosecute it, a severance may be had under Supreme Oourt Rule 35. But a writ taken out in the name of only one is amendable, if it identifies the judgment; and if the party who was not joined afterwards files his election not to proceed, the writ will not be dismissed for the non-joinder, but the other may be allowed to proceed separately.
The clerk’s neglect to enter an oral order extending the tíme to settle a hill of exceptions is not ground for striking out a hill settled in pursuance of it; and the omission may be cured by an order for extension made nuno pro tuno at the next term.
All objections to a record as it stands at the beginning of the term should be made then, and not by separate motions, made on different motion days, to dismiss the writ and strike out the bill of exceptions.
The certificate of the county clerk to the acknowledgment of a recognizance of bail is not a record made in open court and may ■be impeached by testimony in denial of the execution of the bond; and it is error to charge as matter of law that the certificate is entitled to more weight than the unsupported oath of the defendant in an action against the bail.
In an action on a recognizance of bail the jury must determine whether to believe the certificate of acknowledgment thereto, or the testimony .of the defendant denying the execution of the bond.
Error to Oakland.
Submitted Jan. 21.
Decided April 8.
Action on recognizance. Defendant Spencer brings error.
C. é W. N. Draper and Cowles & Cahill for plaintiff in error.
A. L. Millard for defendant in error.
The county clerk’s official certificate of the acknowledgment of a recognizance of bail before him is entitled to belief rather than the unsupported oath of the party who purported to acknowledge it, Graham v. Anderson 42 111. 514; Lickmon v. Ha/rding 65 El. 505; Canal & Dock 'Co. v. Bussell 68 El. 426; McPherson v. Sanborn 88 111. 150; Hartley v. Frosh 6 Tex. 208; Jamison v. Jamison 3 Whart. 457; Bidgely v. Howard 3 Har. & McH. 321.
Motion to dismiss writ.
Submitted January 6.
Decided January 9.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The writ of error in this case should have been sued out in the name of both the defendants below; and a severance effected afterwards under the rules. But as the writ actually issued identifies the judgment, it would be amendable, and as the defendant who was not joined has now filed his election not to unite in prosecuting the writ, the substantial purpose of the proceedings under the rules has been accomplished, and instead of dismissing the writ, we think it competent, and proper that an order be entered that Spencer be at liberty to proceed in the case separately. It will be ordered accordingly.
Submitted January 20. Decided January 21.