Case Name: Henry A. Jones vs. G. F. Stiefer
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1842-11
Citations: 1 Speers 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry A. Jones vs. G. F. Stiefer.
Judges: Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler, and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 15–16

Head Matter:
Henry A. Jones vs. G. F. Stiefer.
Tlie proceedings of a court of record are not sufficiently authenticated by producing the certificate of the clerk, without the seal of the court. Such certificate, even if genuine, would not be sufficient, unless the contrary is provided by law.
Before Earle, J., Abbeville, Fall Term, 1842.
The plaintiff sued as the assignee of a mercantile firm that had become bankrupt, under the late Act of Congress. After proof of the demand, the plaintiff offered in evidence a paper, purporting to be a copy of the order of the district court of the United States for South Carolina, appointing him the assignee, certified by H. Y. Gray, as clerk. As the paper was not authenticated by the seal of the court, and there being no proof that Mr. Gray was clerk, or that the paper was in his hand-writing, his' Honor considered it inadmissible, and ordered a non-suit.
The plaintiff now moved the Court of. Appeals to set aside the non-suit, on the ground, that the evidence offered was sufficient to prove the assignment.
Jones, for the motion. Burt and Thomson, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Earle, J.
It can hardly be necessary to say, that it was not only incumbent on the plaintiff to prove a demand against the defendant, but to prove his right to sue upon it. What would have been the proper evidence of the clerk's appointment, we shall not undertake to prescribe; it is too clear to require any discussion, that the evidence offered was wholly incompetent and insufficient. The proceedings of a court of record should be authenticated by something more than the certificate of the clerk, even if proved to be genuine, unless the contrary is provided by law. And no provision of ihe kind has been brought to our view in the bankrupt Act. Motion refused.
Richardson, O'Neall, Evans, Butler, and Wardlaw, JJ. concurred.