charter parties, powers of attorney, foreign judgments, spe

cialties on record, and registers of births or marriages from

another state,

&c. may be au

thenticated.

1809.

(c) The copy of a power of attorney acknowledged before the mayor of a corporation of a sister state, and on such authentication admitted to record in the court of appeals, cannot be used in evidence.-Bowman v. Bartlet, 3 Mar. 91. 2. A power of attorney to convey lands, acknowledged before one justice of the peace in Virginia, with a certificate under the seal of the court, by the clerk of the county, that the justice was such, and on this authentication recorded in the proper county in this state, cannot be used in evidence.-Fowke v. Danall, 5 Litt. 317.

3. A power of attorney acknowledged before two justices of the peace in a sister state, and admitted to record in this state upon their certificate alone, cannot be used in evidence.Skeene, &c. v. Fishback, &c. 1 Mar. 357.

4. A letter of attorney dated 1800, proved by three witnesses before, and certified by the mayor of the city of Williamsburg, Va. and recorded on the faith of such certificate in the office of the court of appeals of this state, cannot be read in

evidence as a recorded deed.-Bowman v. Bartlet, &c. 3 Mar. 91.

(d) The record of a judgment of the territory of Louisiana, certified by the clerk under the seal of the court, together with the certificate of the governor under the great seal, may be used in evidence.—Haggin v. Squires, 2 Bibb, 335.

2. The judgment of a territorial court obtained after an appearance, is prima facie evidence, and an action of debt will lie thereon.-Price v. Higgins, 1 Litt. 273.

(e) As a notary public is not required to record a power of attorney attested by him, a copy of such power certified by him, cannot be used in evidence.-Spurr v. Trimble, &c. 1 Mar. 279.

(f) A printed copy of a statute of Illinois contained in a pamphlet, which states in its title page that it was printed by the printer to the commonwealth, or then territory, and under that authority, may be read in evidence. The mode of authentication pointed out by the act of congress, is not the exclusive mode.-Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 Mon. 584,

1790.

How legisla

tive acts & the records and ju

dicial proceedings of courts

of sister states may be authenticated.

(1) This act does not restrict the states from permiting the acts of sister states to be read in their courts upon other authentications than that required by the act of congress.-Taylor v. Bank of Illinois, 7 Mon. 584. See the act of Kentucky on this subject, ante, page 187.

2. An exemplification of an act of the legislature of one of the states, under the great seal of such state, though not attested by the governor or any other principal officer of the state, is evidence.-United States v. Johns, 4 Dall. 415. In a subsequent case, a law of the territory of Orleans printed in a pamphlet, to which no seal was affixed, was held to be inadmissible evidence. -Craig v. Brown, 1 Pet. 252.

(j) A copy of a will recorded in the register's office in Pennsylvania, and certified under the seal of the register, is not evidence here. It is not a record appertaining to a court, and does not come within the act of congress of 1790, but is embraced by the act of 1804, and must be au

thenticated according to the provisions of that act.--Ewing's Heirs v. Savary, 4 Bibb, 424.

2. The exemplification of a judgment of a justice of the peace in a sister state, certified according to the act of congress, may be used in evidence-Scott v. Cleveland, 3 Mon. 62.

3. A power of attorney acknowledged in the county court of another state, and ordered to be certified, is good, if the authentication be regularly recorded, attested, and certified according to the act of congress, although the power itself does not appear to have been admitted to record. -Rochester v. Toler, 4 Bibb, 107.

(k) A transcript of the records of the court

Effect of such

of probate of wills and testaments of the Missouri territory, certified since the establishment of the state, (according to the act of congress,) by the officers of the county court where the record purports to be kept, is competent evidence without proof of the laws of the state.-Thomas et ux. v. Tanner, 6 Mon. 52.

2. The manner of certifying the records of the territories, is not within the provisions of the constitution and acts of congress.-Haggin v. Squires, 2 Bibb, 334.

Quere: As to the date of the certificate in the above case?

3. The above act does not apply to the records of the United States' courts. With regard to these, it was held by the supreme court of New York, in an action brought on a judgment ren

dered in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, that on the plea of nul tiel record, a record under the seal of such circuit court, certified by the clerk as a copy, was sufficient evidence, that being the ordinary method of certifying such record used in Massachusetts.-Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 Johns. Cas. 119.

(2) A copy of a petition and schedule of property, taken from the records of the high court of chancery in Maryland, must be certified according to the provisions of the act of congress of 1790, and not of 1804.—Tarlton v. Briscoe, 1

Mar. 68.

2. The record of a decree in chancery in a sister state, certified by the clerk of the court, cannot be used in evidence, unless the certificate of the presiding judge, that the clerk was clerk,

dicial proceedings when au

thenticated.

and that his certificate is in due form, is annexed.-Barbour, &c. v. Watts, 2 Mar. 292.

3. The record of a suit in a sister state, authenticated by a certificate of the clerk of the court, with the seal of the court annexed, together with the certificate of the judge thereof that the person giving such certificate is the clerk, and that his certificate is in due form, may be used in evidence.-Helm v. Shackleford, 5 J. J. Mar.

393.

4. In certifying the transcript of a record from a sister state, it is not necessary that the clerk in his certificate should state that it is full or complete; if it appear on examination to contain the whole history of the suit from its commencement to its termination, it is sufficient: nor is it necessary that the president or presiding judge should give himself such title in the certificate; if the record shows he was so, it is sufficient.Mudd v. Beauchamp, Litt. Sel. Cas. 142.

5. A record from a sister state, attested by the clerk, with the seal of the court annexed, together with the certificate of two judges that the attestation was in due form, &c, and one of whom styles himself "the judge that presided, and one of the judges of the superior court of law of said state;" and the other states himself to be "the senior judge of the courts of law of said state," cannot be used in evidence.--Stephenson v. Bannister, 3 Bibb, 369.

6. When a copy from a record of another state is offered in evidence, and specific objections to reading it, not involving any objection to the sufficiency of the authentication, are taken in the court below; the court of appeals will not examine into the legality of the authentication, but will presume that all objections to that were waived-Huling v. Fort's Adm'r. 2 Lill. 193. 7. A power of attorney proved and admitted to record in Virginia, and attested by the clerk, without the certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, cannot be used in evidence.-Johnson, &c. v. Fowler, 4 Bibb, 521. 8. The due form intended by the acts of congress, is that of the state or court from whence the record comes, and the certificate of the presiding judge is the only evidence of that fact, and other evidence cannot be received to show that it is not in due form.-Craig v. Brown, 1 Pet. 252;Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408.

state upon a will, is conclusive in the other states, on any question between the heirs and devisees concerning the title to lands devised by the will and situated in the state where the will was decided on.-. -Robertson, &c. v. Barbour, 6 Mon. 529.

2. A judgment rendered against bail, in Virginia, upon two returns of "Nihil" may be used in evidence, and is at least prima facie evidence of the demand.-Delano v. Jopling, 1 Litt. 419. 3. When a judgment is had in a sister state, by proceedings in attachment, it will be presumed that the tribunal had jurisdiction of the cause, and that the act concludes the parties. The same force shall be given to it here, that it would be entitled to there; and if it is impeached, the onus probandi lies on him who resists it.-Scott, &c. v. Coleman, 5 Litt. 350.

4. If the judgment or decree of a sister state is founded on the appearance of the defendant, or the actual service of the process on his person, the judgment or decree is conclusive, except so far as it could be impeached in the courts of the state where it was given. But when the defendant did not appear and had constructive notice only, (as by attachment or publication,) the judgment or decree is not conclusive but may be inquired into and impeached.-Rogers v. Coleman, Har. 413.

5. The act of congress never was intended to operate on the municipal regulations of the different states, so as to affect their modes of conveying their own domain, or to point out how such conveyances are to be authenticated before they are placed on the state records. After they are placed there, it points out the mode of authentication to make them evidence elsewhere; but it by no means determines what shall compose the record.-Calvert, &c. v. Fitzgerald, Lit. Sel. Cas. 391.

6. A decree in personam, of a sister state, against an absent resident citizen of another state, without either appearance or actual service of process, is not even prima facie evidence of debt; otherwise where the decree is against an absent citizen of the same state.-Williams v. Preston, 3 J.J. Mar. 600.

See the same case for a full discussion of the effect of foreign judgments and the decrees and judgments of the sister states and the mode of