Grover v. Grover
| Decision Date | 31 July 1860 |
| Citation | 30 Mo. 400 |
| Parties | GROVER, Plaintiff in Error, v. GROVER, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A transcript of the proceedings of a court of Indiana had appended thereto a certificate of the clerk, in which he certified said transcript to be “a full, true and complete transcript of all the proceedings had in the above case, as now remains of record and on file in my office.” The judge of the court certified the certificate and attestation of the clerk to be “in due form.” Held, that the transcript was duly authenticated under the act of Congress.
2. In an action on a judgment of a sister state, the validity of such judgment under the law of such sister state can not be called in question; if the judgment be erroneous, it can only be vacated in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose to the court in which it was rendered.
This was an action on a judgment rendered in the state of Indiana. The transcript offered in evidence was authenticated in the manner set forth below in the opinion of the court. When offered in evidence by the plaintiff it was excluded, whereupon the plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave, &c.
The final judgment or decree of the court as set forth in said transcript, after certain recitals as to the amount due the plaintiff therein, closes as follows: “It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that the said Benjamin W. Grover pay to the said James L. Grover said sum of one thousand five hundred and twenty-three dollars and eighty-eight cents, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum from this date until paid, and the clerk of this court is hereby ordered and directed to issue execution on this decree at the request of said complainant, which execution shall be levied on other property of said Benjamin W. Grover.”Hicks & Silliman, for plaintiff in error.
I. The court erred in not permitting the transcript offered in evidence to be read. The certificate of the clerk was in proper form. The judge certified the attestation of the clerk to be in due form of law. This is conclusive. The record offered in evidence contained a sufficient judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant. There was no variance.
Ryland & Son, for defendant in error.
I. The court properly excluded the transcript. It was not properly certified by the clerk. The certificate does not certify that the transcript is a full and perfect transcript of the record and proceedings in the case. The certificates of the clerk and judge must of themselves be perfect and complete. The transcript can not be resorted to to help out a defective certificate. (See 29 Mo. 345.) The transcript was properly excluded. There is a variance between the decree or judgment as set forth in the transcript and that declared on in the petition. This variance is fatal. (3 McLean, 383.)
This was an action on a judgment rendered in the state of Indiana. The plea was nul tiel record. On the production of the transcript of the judgment as evidence, it was objected that the record was not authenticated in pursuance to the laws of the United States. Here follows a copy of the attestation of the clerk:
“State of Indiana--Jefferson county, ss. I, John G. Sevring, clerk of the circuit court in and for said county, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and complete transcript of all the proceedings had in the above case as now remains of record and on file in my office.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand (L. S.) and the seal of said court at Madison, state and county aforesaid, this 25th day of May, A. D. 1858.
JOHN G. SEVRING, Clerk.”
The judge's certificate was as follows:
“State of Indiana--First judicial circuit, ss. I, the undersigned, at present the sole judge of the said Jefferson circuit court, and the same person who was president judge of said court at the time of the proceedings and judgments aforesaid, (the said Jefferson circuit court being now in the first judicial circuit, though it was then in the third,) do certify that John G. Sevring, whose certificate and attestation are above written, was at the date thereof, clerk of the said Jefferson circuit court, and that his said certificate and attestation are in due form of law, and that full faith and credit are due to all his official acts.
Witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caffery v. Choctaw Coal & Mining Company
... ... v. Kansas City, 118 Mo. 309; Howard v. State, ... 47 Ark. 431; Leonard v. Sparks, 117 Mo. 103; ... Akers v. Hobbs, 105 Mo. 127; Grover v ... Grover, 30 Mo. 400; 1 Black on Judgments, secs. 83 and ... 87; Leonard v. Sparks, supra; Thompson v. Railroad, ... 110 Mo. 151; Howland v ... ...
-
The State v. Avery
...and properly authenticated. Act of Congress, 2 Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 905, p. 2168; 1 Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 4881; Grover v. Grover, 30 Mo. 400. And the records judicial proceedings were properly admitted for the purpose of impeachment, and the judgment of conviction was the onl......
-
Groo v. Sanderson
... ... R. S. 1919, sec. 5387; ... Seymour v. Newman, 77 Mo.App. 578-582; Campbell, ... et al. v. Wolf, et al., 33 Mo. 459; Grover v. Grover, 30 ... J. W ... Halliburton & Son for respondent ... (1) ... Judge BARTON was the special judge ... ...
-
Quayle v. M., K.&T. Ry. Co.
...1008; Quincy Mo. & Pac. R. R. vs. Ridge, 57 Mo. 599; Han. & St. Joe. R. R. vs. Morton, 27 Mo. 320; Martin vs. Barron, 37 Mo. 305; Grover vs. Grover, 30 Mo. 400; Bernecker vs. Miller, 40 Mo. 111; Montgomery vs. Farley, 5 Mo. 233; Winston vs. Affalter, 49 Mo. 263; Childs vs. Shannon, 16 Mo. 3......