Treat v. Maxwell

• Decision Date: 19 July 1889
• Citation: 19 A. 98,82 Me. 76
• Parties: TREAT v. MAXWELL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

19 A. 98

82 Me. 76

TREAT

v. MAXWELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

July 19, 1889.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Knox county.

Debt on a judgment recovered in the supreme judicial court by Franklin Treat against John Maxwell. Plea, nul tiel record. Plaintiff offered in evidence the following duly authenticated transcript:

"State of Maine, Knox—ss. At the supreme judicial court, begun and holden at Rockland, within and for the county of Knox on the second Tuesday of March, being the ninth day of said month, A. D. 1875.

"By the Hon. WM. WIRT VIRGIN, justice of said court.

"Treat vs. Maxwell & Trustee. "No. 450.

"Franklin Treat, of Frankfort, in our county of Waldo, plaintiff, against John Maxwell, of said Frankfort, principal defendant, and the Hurricane Granite Company, a corporation duly established by law, and having an office at Rockland, in our county of Knox, summoned as trustee of said principal defendant.

"The writ in this action is dated October 29, A. D. 1874, and was served on said principal defendant, and on said trustee, November 17, A. D. 1874.

"The action was entered at the December term, A. D. 1874.

"And now, at this term, it is considered by the court that the said plaintiff recover against the said principal defendant the sum of sixty-five dollars and seventy-seven cents, debt or damage, and costs of suit, taxed at fifteen dollars and sixty cents, and that execution issue therefor against the said principal defendant, his goods and estate in his own hands, and likewise against his goods, effects, and credits in the hands and possession of the said trustee.

"Judgment rendered March 26, A. D. 1875.

"Execution issued August 18. A. D 1875.

"This record is made by special direction of the court, entered upon the docket of the March term, A. D. 1879.

"Attest: L. F. STARRETT,

"Clerk of Courts."

The defendant objected to the introduction of the transcript because it was not a sufficient record of the judgment declared on, but the presiding justice admitted it. Defendant then put in evidence a copy of the writ and declaration, which showed that the action was assumpsit, on an account annexed to the writ, which showed a balance against defendant of $64.20. There was a judgment for plaintiff, to which defendant excepted.

Rev. St. Me. c. 79, § 11, provides that, on the rendition of final judgment, "it is sufficient to record the names of the parties, date of writ, the term of the court at which it was entered, date of service or notice to defendants, the time of rendition of judgment, its nature and amount, and the number of the case upon the docket at the judgment term; but upon motion of either party the court may, if special cause is shown, order a full record in any case."

J. Williamson, for plaintiff. W. H. Fogler, for defendant.

HASKELL. J. The record of the judgment in suit must stand or fail of itself. Papers and documents filed in the case, but not incorporated into the record, constitute no part of it. Valentine v. Norton, 30 Me. 200; Lawrence v. Mt. Vernon, 35 Me. 100; Freem. Judgm. § 126.

The action is debt upon a supposed judgment of this court rendered in another county. The plea is nul tiel record, upon which issue is taken to the court, to decide, from inspection, whether a record of such judgment exists. Strictly speaking, the record itself, "is the best and only original evidence of the facts recited in it;" but properly authenticated copies are now held competent evidence of such records in all cases. Sawyer v. Garcelon, 63 Me. 26.

The transcript produced shows that the court had jurisdiction of the parties, and awarded damages and costs...