Rea v. Scully

• Decision Date: 21 December 1888
• Citation: 76 Iowa 343,41 N.W. 36
• Parties: REA ET AL. v. SCULLY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

76 Iowa 343

41 N.W. 36

REA ET AL.

v.SCULLY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 21, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Keokuk county; J. K. JOHNSON, Judge.

Action by Rea & Co. against W. J. Scully on a foreign judgment. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.Sampson & Brown, for appellant.

Mackey & Stockman, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

The plaintiffs filed their petition, containing two counts. The first of these was based on an alleged judgment of the court of common pleas No. 2, of Alleghany county, Pa., rendered for the sum of $167.36, besides interest and costs. The second count pleaded an account for merchandise sold, on which it is alleged that the judgment set out in the first count was rendered. After the evidence was submitted, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for the amount of the judgment, which was done, and judgment rendered thereon. The second count need not be further considered.

1. To sustain the issues on their part, the plaintiff introduced in evidence a transcript of the judgment in controversy, and the deposition of a witness, who testified that he had presented the claim in suit to defendant for collection; that defendant looked at the transcript, and said the claim was correct and unpaid, and that he expected to pay it some time; that he had failed in business, owing a considerable amount, and had been paying as fast as he could, and expected to pay all, but plaintiffs had sued him, and recovered judgment against him, and made costs, and now they should wait until he was ready. The transcript recites that judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and against defendant, on the 21st day of July, 1883, by an alderman of the city of Pittsburgh; that a transcript of such judgment was filed in the court of common pleas No. 2, in and for the county of Alleghany, commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that judgment was entered. A copy of a portion of the judgment docket shows that the judgment in the court of common pleas was rendered on the 1st day of October, 1884. No objection is made to the sufficiency of the authentication of the transcript, but it is insisted that the transcript itself does not show that any judgment was rendered against defendant; that it does not set out any record entry of judgment in the court of common pleas; that it is not shown that aldermen have power to render judgments in the state of Pennsylvania; that the laws of that state, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, will be presumed to be the same as those of the state of Iowa; that there is no showing that a transcript from the alderman's docket to the court of common pleas was made, nor that such court was authorized to render a judgment on such a transcript. It is not objected that the transcript admitted in evidence in this case was not the best evidence. The copy of the judgment docket of the court of common...