Herrick v. Ammerman

• Decision Date: 18 December 1884
• Parties: Nathan Herrick v. Mary Ammerman
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

21 N.W. 836

32 Minn. 544

Nathan Herrick v. Mary Ammerman

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 18, 1884

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Morrison county, Collins, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Order affirmed.

Edward Savage, for appellant.

Searle Searle & Tolman, for respondent.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Action of ejectment to recover possession of premises situated in Morrison county, described as lot 5, block 39, in the village of Little Falls, according to the plat thereof on file. The plaintiff claims title under a sale on executions issued out of the district court for Hennepin county, on three judgments against the "Little Falls Manufacturing Company," then the owner of the premises. Two of these judgments purported to have been rendered by a justice of the peace in Hennepin county, transcripts of which were filed, and the judgments docketed, in the office of the clerk of the district court in that county, and then transcripts of these docket entries filed and docketed in the office of the clerk of the district court in Morrison county.

1. We are of opinion that, under the provisions of sections 72 and 73, chapter 65, Gen. St. 1878, after the filing of transcripts of justices' judgments, and the entry of such judgments by the clerk of the district court in the docket of district court judgments, they become, in effect, judgments of the district court; at least, so far as their enforcement against real estate is concerned. The judgments being then a matter of record in the district court, exemplifications of the transcripts there on file, and of the docket entries in the judgment docket of the court, attested by the clerk, with the seal of the court annexed, are competent evidence to prove the judgments. These are not transcripts of the justice's docket, but exemplifications of the records and files of the district court. Hence they are to be authenticated by the clerk of that court. Tuttle v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 213; Upham v Damon, 12 Allen 98. The objection that they were incompetent because there was no certificate that the person by whom the judgments were rendered was a justice, as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 75, and chapter 73, § 84, was, therefore, not well taken.

2. It was objected that no foundation was laid for the introduction in evidence of the executions issued out of the district court, because it had not been proved that executions had been previously issued out of justice's court. It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to say that the presumption of law is that the clerk of the district court did his duty, and did not violate the statute. What would be the effect if it affirmatively appeared that no executions had ever been issued by the justice, it is not necessary now to consider.

3. The only remaining question is as to the sufficiency of the description of the premises in the sheriff's certificate of sale. A large number of tracts were sold on these executions. The descriptions in the certificate are as follows: "The following described real estate, lying being and situated in said county of Morrison (state of Minnesota) and described as follows: S. E. 1/4 section 8 township 40, range 32." (Here...