Case Name: Burk's Executors v. Tregg's Executors
Court: Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1796-10
Citations: 2 Wash. 215
Docket Number: 
Parties: Burk’s Executors v. Tregg’s Executors.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 715–716

Head Matter:
Burk’s Executors v. Tregg’s Executors.
October Term, 1796.
Record — Proof of — Production of Original Record. — Upon the plea of "no such record,” if the record be of the same Court, a copy of it ouitht not to be given in evidence, but the original ought to be produced for inspection.
In March 1788, the appellees sued a writ of scire facias against John Burk and Joseph Cross, executors of Henry Burk, upon a judgment recovery by the testator of the appellees, against Thomas Burk, and the said Henry Burk the security for his appearance. The defendant John Burk, to whom alone the writ was made known, appeared, and after craving oyer of the scire facias, pleaded, 1st, no such record; and 2dly, ‘‘payment by Henry Burk, of the only debt recovered against him by the said Tregg, whereof there is any appearance of a record.” Upon both pleas, issues were joined.
Both issues being found in favor of the plaintiffs, the former by the court, upon inspection of a copy of the judgment, and the latter by the jury, judgment was given for him. At the trial of the cause upon the first issue the defendant filed a bill of exceptions *to the opinion of the court, allowing a copy of the record of the judgment only, without the pleadings, to be given in evidence.
At a subsequent court, viz, in November 1789, the matters of law arising upon the bill of exceptions were argued, and decided in favour of the defendant, and judgment was entered for him, with costs against the plaintiffs.
An appeal was prayed to the District Court of Fredericksburg-, pending which the appellee John Burk died, and a scire facias to revive, was awarded against Thomas Burk executor of the said John Burk.
The District Court reversed the judgment of the County Court and gave judgment, that the appellant might have execution against the appellee Thomas Burk, for the amount of the original judgment and costs of the scire facias, to be levied of the goods and chattels of the said Henry Burk in the hands of the said Thomas Burk to be administered if so much &c. If not then of the goods and chattels of the said John Burk deceased in the hands of the said Thomas Burk to be administered, if so much thereof he had.
From this judgment an appeal was prayed to this court.
See foot-note to Anderson v. Dudley, 5 Gall 629. The principal case is cited with approval in Dig fíes v. Dunn. 1 Munf. 59; Dykes v. Woodbouse, 3 Rand. 314.

Opinion:
ROANE, J.
The District Court did right in reversing the second judgment of the County Court, and by doing so, it in effect affirmed the first judgment of that court. Against that judgment it is objected, that a copy of the original judgment ought not to have been given in evidence. It is certainly a well established rule in England, that upon the plea of no such record, if the record be of the same court, it ought to be inspected, and it is not sufficient to produce a copy in evidence. I do not know that in this country, that rule has ever been changed, nor do I think it ought to be. There are many imperfections in the record, but as I am clear that the judgment of the District Court, which affirms the first judgment of the County Court is wrong, and must for that reason be reversed, it is unnecessary to take notice of any other error.