Case Name: SILVER LAKE BANK v. A. AND S. E. HARDIN
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-09
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 430
Docket Number: 
Parties: SILVER LAKE BANK v. A. AND S. E. HARDIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
SILVER LAKE BANK v. A. AND S. E. HARDIN.
Upon a plea of nul tiel record, a record or copy must be exhibited for the inspection of the court, a deposition of facts independent of a docket cannot be received.
A declaration describing a judgment as rendered on the 23d of October, is not supported by a transcript of a judgment on the 19th of October.
Debt upon the judgment of a justice in Pennsylvania. The declaration upon a judgment for $86 38, and three dollars eighteen cents costs, rendered the 23d of October, 1819. Plea nul tiel record, and issue.
Coffinberry, for the plaintiff,
offered a transcript from a Pennsylvania justice, of a judgment rendered the 19th of October, 1819, against Amos and S. E. Hardin, and one Dimick, for $86 38, besides costs, three dollars eighteen cents; and read a deposition of the justice, that he was a justice of the peace, and rendered the judgment on default, the 19th of October, 1819-, for $86 23, and that S. E. Hardin is Solomon E. Hardin; that he had no clerk or seal of his court, but acted as his own clerk.
Purdy,
objected, first: that the record was not authenticated according to the act of congress; and second: the variance in the date and amount of the judgment.

Opinion:
Wood, J.
Upon the issue of nul tiel record, you must exhibit a record that we can receive — one either authenticated according to the act of congress, or an examined copy. The record here is not authenticated in either way. It is not attested and duly certified— nor is the deposition of the magistrate of an examined copy of his docket; but of independent facts, corresponding in some particulars, with the transcript, and in others explanatory, as with respect to the S. for Solomon but there is no reference to the transcript, nor proof that there is any docket entry. This kind of proof is inadmissible of a judgment or record which must be inspected by the ctmrt on this issue. But if it were duly authenticated, it appears to be of a judgment rendered on the nineteenth of October, while that declared upon is of a judgment rendered on the twenty-third of October, and, as no such record is exhibited to our inspection as that in issue, we must find for the defendant. On the issue made up to the court, we. have no evidence that there is such a record as the plaintiff declares upon. 6 O. R. 44.
There is also an issue upon nil debet (see 5 O. R. 546) which must go to a jury.
(See 1 Blkf. R. 60; nul tiel record nullity.)