Hamon v. Foust
| Decision Date | 28 September 1912 |
| Citation | 150 S.W. 418 |
| Parties | HAMON v. FOUST. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.
Action by F. V. Hamon against W. W. Foust. A judgment for defendant was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and defendant brings certiorari. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the chancery court affirmed.
Noble Smithson, of Knoxville, for plaintiff. J. C. J. Williams, of Huntsville, for defendant.
Foust, having a judgment against Hamon, caused it to be levied upon certain property described in the bill. Thereupon Hamon filed his bill to enjoin the sale of the property, alleging as ground for the injunction that the judgment had been discharged in bankruptcy. He filed as an exhibit to the bill a paper purporting to be a copy of the discharge, but this was certified only by the clerk. Objection was made on the ground that the discharge was not properly authenticated under our statute, and it could not be used as evidence. The chancellor sustained this view, and denied the complainant relief. On appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, this judgment was reversed, and the case was then brought to this court by certiorari.
We are of the opinion that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals must be reversed. The provisions of our Code bearing upon the subject are contained in section 5580, as follows: "A judicial record of a sister state, or of any of the federal courts of the United States, may be proved by a copy thereof, attested by the clerk, under his seal of office, if he have one, together with a certificate of a judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the attestation is in due form of law." The discharge is nothing more than a decree or judgment of the federal court by which it is granted, and our statute makes no exception.
It is insisted that, inasmuch as the discharge in question was granted by one of the District Courts of the United States sitting in this state, it should be treated as the judgment of a domestic court, and that the certificate of the clerk alone, without that of the presiding judge, would be sufficient under section 5579 of our Code, which reads: "A judicial record of this state is proved by the production of the original, or by a copy thereof, certified by the clerk or the person having the legal custody thereof, authenticated by his seal of office, if he have one." Section 5580, however, makes no exception in favor of a federal court sitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Birones v. State
-
State ex rel. Needham v. Ford
...records subject to the provision of the above quoted statute must be certified as required by the statute, this Court, in Hamon v. Foust, 127 Tenn. 32, 150 S.W. 418, 'We recognize the convenience of the rule indicated, and fully sympathize with the spirit of friendliness between the courts ......