Court Opinion

ID: 9848252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:23.510236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.797090
License: Public Domain

Berry, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I agree with many of the points discussed in the majority decision concerning the general application of presumptions. However, it is not necessary nor proper to consider the application of those rules in this ' case, because a presumption never arose from the facts established by the evidence. I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the evidence in this case is to the effect that no order of attachment was ever issued.
The clerk’s docket discloses that the complaint instituting the action and the affidavit for an attachment *622were filed and summons was issued on January 15, 1966, but there is no entry of an attachment being issued. The officer’s return was entered in the clerk’s docket on January 18, 1966. The return should have been attached to the order of attachment and the officer who made the return stated that all he saw was the return and did not know whether any other paper was attached to it. He called the return an order of attachment, which, of course, it was not. The officer attached the return to the door of a building and the owner of the building testified that the return was the only paper he found on the building and there were no other papers attached to it.
The records in the clerk’s office do not support the issuance of an order of attachment by the clerk. In fact, the failure of the clerk’s docket to show an entry that an attachment was issued supports the defendants’ contention that no order of attachment was ever issued by the clerk.
There is no proof that an order of attachment was ever issued in this case and, therefore, there is nothing to support the presumption that an order of attachment was issued. A presumption cannot be used as a substitute for proof of an independent and material fact. 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 171.
The presumption that public officers have done their duty is a legal presumption but does not supply proof of a substantive fact. United States v. Ross, 92 U.S. 281, 23 L. Ed. 707.
There was no evidence introduced to support or explain the presumption attempted to be used by the plaintiff in this case, but on the contrary, any such presumption was rebutted by the evidence introduced in the case at bar and by virtue of such evidence the contended presumption disappeared' and was no longer to be considered in the disposition of the case. Shaw v. Perfetti, 147 W.Va. 87, 125 S.E.2d 778.
*623No one testified that an order of attachment was ever issued and no one testified that' they ever saw an order of attachment. No order of attachment was contained in the court file. It may well be said that the absence of the order of attachment from the court file creates a presumption that none was ever there and certainly there was no rebuttal of this alleged presumption because the evidence strongly supports it with independent material facts. Trent v. State Compensation Commissioner, 113 W.Va. 262, 167 S.E. 623; Tree v. White, (Utah), 171 P.2d 398.
For the reasons stated in this dissent, I would affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County.
I am authorized to say that Justice Sprouse joins in this dissent.