Case Name: The State, for the use of Williamson and Wife, against Benjamin Levy
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1797-05
Citations: 3 Md. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State, for the use of Williamson and Wife, against Benjamin Levy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 3
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1797.
The State, for the use of Williamson and Wife, against Benjamin Levy.
THIS was an action of debt upon an administration bond.
Two bills of exceptions were taken at the trial of the cause.
1. The plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury a commission, duly and regularly issued in this cause, from this court, to certain persons in Philadelphia, therein named commissioners, and the return of the execution thereof, with the depositions taken under it.
To the reading of which the defendant’s counsel objected, inasmuch as it does not appear, by the return to the said commission, that the commissioners qualified by taking the oath annexed to the said commission before a-person legally authorized to administer an oath, or otherwise than by the certificate of the commissioners themselves, of their being duly sworn.
The Court were of opinion that the said commission, and the depositions taken in virtue thereof, were legally admissible as testimony in the cause, and did receive the same as evidence. To this opinion the defendant excepted.
2. In the second bill of exceptions the defendant objected to the reading of the same commission and return, &c. “ Inasmuch as the signature of the names of the commissioners at the close of the said commission is not accompanied by the respective seals of the said commissioners ; and it does not appear, from the face of any of the proceedings in the said commission, that the seals of the said commissioners were affixed to any part of the said commission or its enclosure.” But on the facts appearing to the court contained in the affidavit of £„ Ridgely, Esq. “ That the commission filed in this cause was received by this deponent enclosed in a letter from Philadelphia; that the said commission was enclosed in a cover directed to the honourable the judges of the general court; that the names of the acting commissioners were, by themselves, written on the said cover, and cheir seals annexed to their names respectively; that the said commission was delivered, in the manner it was received by this deponent, to one of the clerks of the general court, where it was opened in the presence, and at the request, of the deponent,”
Martin (Attorney-General) and Ridgely, for the plaintiff.
Key and Kilty, for the defendant-

Opinion:
The Court
were of opinion that the said commission, and the evidence taken under it, should be read in evidence to the jury.
To this opinion the defendant excepted, and brought a writ of error to the court of appeals.
At June term, 1799, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment.