Case Name: MASON v. LAWRASON et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1804-11
Citations: 16 F. Cas. 1046
Docket Number: 
Parties: MASON v. LAWRASON et al.
Judges: (CRANCH, Circuit Judge, absent,)
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 16
Pages: 1046–1047

Head Matter:
Case Mo. 9,242.
MASON v. LAWRASON et al.
[1 Cranch, C. C. 190.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1804.
Pleading at Law — Action' by Administrator-Oyer of Letters — Profert—Court Records — Authentication.
1. Although the plaintiffs name themselves administrators. yet if they have not made profert of their letters of administration they are not bound to give oyer of them.
2. The act of congress respecting the authentication of the records of state courts does not apply to recoids of the courts of the United States.
[Cited in Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 424.]
Action on a contract made with the administrators and not with the intestate, but the plaintiffs named themselves administrators, and did not make a profert of their letters of administration. A rule had been laid upon the defendants [Lawrason & Smoot] to plead. They prayed oyer of the letters of administration, and cited Theobald v. Long, Cartli. 453, and Adams v. Savage, 6 Mod. 134. The plaintiffs refused to give oyer.
Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs.
Mr. Swann, for defendant.

Opinion:
THE COURT
decided that they were not bound to give oyer, because there was no pro-fert; because oyer is not demandable after the first term; and because the plaintiffs did not sue in the right of their intestate, but in their own right. So that the letters of administration constituted no part of their title.
A certificate of discharge of McPherson, as a bankrupt, was offered in evidence, with a seal, said by counsel to be the seal of the United States district court in Richmond, but not stated by the clerk to be such, but barely signed by him.
[See 3 Cranch (7 U.. S.) 492.]
THE COURT
(CRANCH, Circuit Judge, absent,)
permitted verbal evidence to be given that this was the seal, and also that the clerk of that court, W. Marshall, had usually attested records in that manner, and did not insist on its being authenticated agreeably to the requisites of the act of congress, as it was not the act of a state court, but one of the United States. (Judge Fitzhugh's Notes.)