Opinion of the Court-SCOTT, J. [2 Wash. in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state; and the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Section 905 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: "The acts of the legislature of any state or territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such state, territory or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state or territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the state from which they are taken." Some of the minor errors alleged will first be taken up without following the order in which the objections have been stated. The point that the record was inadmissible in evidence because the judge did not certify that the attestation was in due form as required by § 905 of the Revised Statutes is disposed of by § 430 of the Code of Washington (1881), which reads as follows: "SEC. 430. The records and proceedings of any court of the United States or any state or territory shall be admissible in evidence in all cases in this territory when duly authenticated by the attestation of the clerk, prothonotary or other officer having charge of the records of such court, with the seal of such court annexed." While the legislature could not enact that any further or additional matters should be certified to not required by the laws of the United States, it could dispense with some of July, 1891.] Opinion of the Court-Scott, J. the requirements there provided for. See Kingman v. Cowles, 103 Mass. 283. A further objection was also made, that it must appear by the clerk's certificate, or otherwise, that such clerk had charge of the records of the court in order to authorize him to certify thereto, as provided by the section of the code aforesaid; but § 905 of the Revised Statutes does not require this to be certified to or shown, and this fact would be presumed. The case last cited also holds that the seal of the court attached to the clerk's certificate attests his possession of the record. The objections that the seal was not attached to the record, and that it was not sufficient to attach it to the certificate of the clerk, that the judgment entry was not signed by the judge, and that there was a variance between the record as pleaded and the one offered in evidence, are not valid. It is only necessary that the seal be attached to the certificate of the clerk, and there it is required by the section aforesaid of the Revised Statutes. See Turner v. Wad dington, 3 Wash. C. C. 126. The signature of the judge to the journal entry of the judgment was not necessary to make it valid. See Ainsworth v. Territory, 3 Wash. T. 270; Cathcart v. Peck, 11 Minn. 45; Childs v. McChesney, 20 Iowa, 431 (89 Am. Dec. 545). The variance complained of is that the complaint described the judgment as having been rendered for $19.30 costs while the judgment offered in evidence, though similar in other respects to the one pleaded, was rendered for costs in the sum of $18.30. The judgment is pleaded in the third paragraph of the complaint; the denial thereto in the answer was as follows: The defendant "denies the allegations contained in the third paragraph of plaintiff's amended complaint." This was only a denial of the specific sum claimed, and was an admission of any lesser amount so far as the sum alleged was concerned. It is not claimed that the judgment below was, Opinion of the Court-SCOTT, J. [2 Wash. and it does not appear to have been rendered for the full amount alleged and prayed for. The defendant was not misled. It was not shown or claimed that he was, and the variance was immaterial. Sec. 105 of the Code of Washington (1881) reads as follows: "SEC. 105. No variance between the allegation in a pleading and the proof shall be deemed material, unless it shall have actually misled the adverse party to his prejudice in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. Whenever it shall be alleged that a party has been so misled, that fact shall be proved to the satisfaction of the court, and in what respect he has been misled, and, thereupon, the court may order the pleading to be amended upon such terms as shall be just." The objections raised that there was no proof that the justice of the peace had any authority to certify the case to the district court, that he did not in fact so certify it, and one of the reasons urged in support of the objection raised to the jurisdiction, which was that the action was instituted and carried on in Kansas without any complaint having been filed, have no force here. The case was sent to the district court upon the defendant's motion and he appeared in the district court and contested the action. The cause of action apparently was founded upon a promissory note which was described in the notice issued by the justice to the defendant; the execution of the note was admitted in the defendant's answer, and a failure of consideration alleged as a defense. Under the circumstances these matters could only have been taken advantage of in the courts of Kansas, if at all. Questions were raised as to where the burden of proof rested to show the jurisdiction of the Kansas court both over the subject-matter of the action and the person of the judgment debtor, and as to the identity of the defendant in this action as the judgment debtor, and also as to the construction and effect of the pleadings in relation to July, 1891.] Opinion of the Court-SCOTT, J. these matters. The appellant contends that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove at the trial that the district court was a court of general jurisdiction, or that it had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of that action in any event, and especially so in this case because the plaintiff had alleged jurisdiction in his complaint which appellant denied in his answer. Such allegations in the complaint are not necessary it seems under the authorities. However, the allegation that the district court was one of general jurisdiction cuts no figure as to changing the burden of proof in this case. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it would be presumed that the district court aforesaid is a court of general jurisdiction. See Phelps v. Duffy, 11 Nev. 80; Stewart v. Stewart, 27 W. Va. 167; Specklemeyer v. Dailey, 23 Neb. 101; Pringle v. Woolworth, 90 N. Y. 502; Butcher v. Bank, 2 Kan. 70 (83 Am. Dec. 416). And the production of the record with the seal of the court to the certificate was prima facie evidence that it was a court of general jurisdiction. It being a court of record, it is presumed to have had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The record itself affords presumptive proof of these matters. The subject-matter of the action was the money claimed to be due for which the action was brought, not the documents certified to the district court by the justice. Questions as to how the issue got in the district court only go to the regularity of the proceedings, and as said before could only be taken advantage of there if that court had jurisdiction of this defendant's person therein. The recitals in the record of the jurisdiction acquired over the defendant's person in that proceeding are prima facie evidence thereof, and the defendant offered no proof to contradict any of these matters. He also contends here that as his affirmative defense was not replied to or denied by the plaintiff that it must be taken as true, and that judgment should have been ren Opinion of the Court-SCOTT, J. [2 Wash. dered in his favor thereon. It is doubtful whether the defendant's whole answer raised any other issue than that of nul tiel record, and this is the only defense available under a general denial in an action upon a judgment of a court of record of a sister state. The so-called affirmative defenses were denials in form, and nothing was pleaded therein alleging that the court had not jurisdiction of either the subject-matter of the action, or of the defendant's person. The first paragraph of his further defense is the only one in any wise tending to show a want of jurisdiction of the subjectmatter wherein it seems to deny that the court had jurisdiction of anything. The first part of the second paragraph attempts to deny that the cause of action ever existed. These amounted to nothing more than statements of conclusions of law. The remaining part of this defense related to wholly immaterial matters. The affirmative defense could not have stood had it been attacked in the superior court. Pleas to the jurisdiction must be direct and certain, and set up the facts which go to show a want of it. See Hill v. Mendenhall, 21 Wall. 453; Welch v. Sykes, 3 Gilman, 197 (44 Am. Dec. 689); Diblee v. Davison, 25 Ill. 486; Moulin v. Insurance Co., 4 Zab. 222; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292 (15 Am. Dec. 374); Price v. Ward, 25 N. J. Law, 225. But no attention seems to have been given to the affirmative defense at the trial by either party. The appellant did not object to the plaintiff's proof as inadmissible on the ground that this defense had not been replied to, nor did he at any time move the court for judgment upon the pleadings or ask for an instruction for a verdict in his favor upon that ground. If his answer, under the circumstances, raised any issue except that of a bare denial of the record and any advantage could have been taken thereof, it was waived by him in failing to call the attention of the trial court thereto. It is possible an instruction was asked upon this ground by appellant, as an allusion is made in the record to instruc |