March, 1804, it is declared that all records and exemplifications of office books which are or may be kept in any public office of any State not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any other court or office in any other State by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office thereto annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county or district, as the case may be, in which such office is or may be kept, or of the governor, secretary of State, the chancellor or the keeper of the great seal of the State, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officer; and the said certificate, if given by the presiding justice of a court, shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand or the seal of his office, that said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if the said certificate be given by the governor, the secretary of State, the chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State in which the said certificate is made. And that the said records and exemplifications, authenticated as aforesaid, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices in the States from whence the same are or shall be taken. And by the last named act, it is also provided that the provisions of both acts shall apply as well to the public acts records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts and offices of the respective Territories of the United States, and countries subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as to the public acts, records, office books, judicial proceedings, courts and offices of the several States. 2

Applicable only to State courts. The foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions of the United States apply only to the courts of the States and Territories of the United States. They have no reference whatever to the courts, records, documents or acts of the United States, as evidence in the State courts, or to those of the State courts, as evidence in the national courts; in these cases the ordinary certificate of the clerk, and seal of the court, in such manner or form as renders them admissible in

United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, 298; R. S. of U. S., 2d Ed. §

906.

2

United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, 298; R. S. of U. S., 2d Ed. §

906.

the courts of the same State, or in the Federal courts, as the case may be, renders these documents, records and acts mutually admissible as between the State and Federal courts, when otherwise proper evidence. But notwithstanding those national provisions are not intended to apply to the United States courts, yet the records of those courts are admissible in other courts, though certified in accordance with said act of Congress." The fact that such authentication more than fulfills the requirement of the law as to admissibility will not be ground of exclusion. 3

4

State and national courts not foreign to each other. The State and national courts, though emanations of different sovereignties, are in nowise foreign tribunals to each other, nor are the national courts of one circuit or district such in reference to those of other circuits or districts, but are domestic tribunals, whose seals are recognized as matter of course.5 But such courts, both

national and State, are courts of different sovereignties, and the national courts are only required to give to judgments of State courts such authority as they are entitled to in the courts of the State wherein they are rendered."

Illustration. Void Judgments. A personal judgment rendered without service on or appearance of defendant therein is void, and will be so regarded when brought in question as a judgment of a State court in the courts of the United States," notwithstanding the act of Congress of May 26, 1790, and amendatory

1 Mason v. Lawrason, 1 Cr. C. C. 190; Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 299; Mewster e. Spalding, 6 McL. 24; Murry v. Marsh, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 290; Buford v. Hickman, Hempst. 232; United States v. Wood, 2 Wheeler's Criminal Cases, 326; Turnbull v. Payson, 5 Otto, 418, 422; Adams e.Way, 33 Conn. 419; Pepoon v. Jenkins, 2 John. Cases, 119; Williams v. Wilkes, 14 Penn. St. 228; Jenkins v. Kinsley, 3 John. Cases, 474; Adams v. Lisher, 3 Blackf. 241.

2 Craig . Brown, Pet. C. C. 352; Scott v. Blanchard, 8 Martin, (N. s.) 303; Johnson v. Rannalls, 6 Martin, (N. s.) 621; Balfour v Chew, 5 Martin, (N. 8.) 517; Barbour v. Watts, 2 A. K. Marsh. 290; Ripple v. Ripple, 1

Rawle, 386; Hunt v. Lyle, 8 Yerg. 142.

Buford v. Hickman, Hempst. 233.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto, 714.

5 Turnbull v. Payson, 5 Otto, 418, 423, 424; Womack e. Dearman, 7 Port. (Ala.)513; Commonwealth v. Phillips, 11 Pick. 28; Chamberlin v. Ball, 15 Gray, 352; Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto,

714.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto, 714.

7 Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto, 714, 733, 734; Smith v. McCutcheon, 38 Mo. 415; Darrance v. Preston, 18 Iowa, 396; Mitchell v. Gray, 18 Ind. 123; Hakes v. Shupe, 27 Iowa, 465; Borden v. Fitch, 15 John. 121; Harris . Hardeman, 14 How. 334; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404.

acts, prescribing the manner of proving records and judicial proceedings of the several States in the tribunals of another of them; these acts do not apply to such judgments as are rendered without jurisdiction of the defendant's person, obtained by service of process within the State, or else by appearance to the action. Such judgments are void.1

II. PROOF OF RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN
PURSUANCE THEREOF.

Attestation and Seal. Under the act of Congress of May 26, 1790, the records and proceedings of the courts of any State are provable and admissible in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court, if there be a seal, thereto annexed, together with the certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the attestation is in due form. If the records to be certified be those of a court having no seal, then the clerk's certificate must show that fact, or else it must be shown by the certificate of the judge.3

Faith and Credit of Records. Records and judicial proceedings thus authenticated are entitled to such faith and credit in every court in the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from whence they are taken.4

Extended to Territories. By act of Congress of March 27, 1804, the provision aforesaid in reference to authentication and admissibility in evidence of judicial proceedings and records of the courts of the States, and the effect thereof, are extended to courts of all the Territories of the United States. Though there must have been personal jurisdiction of the defendant to entitle the proceedings to such faith and credit, and though the proceeding be commenced by attachment without service on defendant, yet if he appear and defend, and there then be personal judgment against him, the case comes within the act of

Congress, and the proceedings are entitled to full faith and credit in other States, properly certified.1

Judge's Certificate. These certificates, when in due form, are proof in themselves. The questions of regularity of the clerk's certificate, and of his being clerk, or if certifying as deputy, then also the questions as to his being deputy, and of the deputy's power to do the act, are all settled in the affirmative by the judge's certificate, if it be in conformity to the act of Congress. And though the certificate of the judge be not dated, yet if it immediately follows the certificate of the clerk, and the latter be dated, that is sufficient. So, letters of guardianship, certified by a probate judge as his own clerk, and by him certified to as judge as being in due form, and stating that he is also clerk, are sufficiently attested under the law. 4

Proof of statutes. And so the certificate and seal of State of the genuineness of statute laws need no other proof of their authenticity, or of the official character of the person certifying as secretary of state, and if there be interlineations they are presumed to have been made rightfully;5 and so it is settled that State laws need not be proved in the courts of the United States.6

Informal Judgment Entries. And where by the State practice no formal entry of judgments of record in extenso is made, but mere docket entries are used, as in Pennsylvania and in the District of Columbia, in the State and local courts, then such docket entries and proceedings in the cause, duly certified and authenticated under said acts of Congress, are evidence in the courts of other States and Territories, if a foundation be laid in the pleadings for showing and making proof of such practice and the reason of the non-production of a more formal record." Personal Jurisdiction Necessary. Though the authentication

6 Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607; U. S. v. The Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392; Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317; Hinde . Vattier, 5 Pet. 398.

* Washington, A. & G. St. Packet Co. v. Sickles, 24 How. 333; Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cr. 408; Philadelphia, Wil. & Balt. R. R. Co. v. Howard, 13 How. 307; Hade v. Brotherton, 3 Cr. C. C. 594.

and formalities be strictly in compliance with the acts of Congress, yet if neither personal service of the original process nor the appearance of the defendant be shown, so as to give the court jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, such record is of no value in another State in evidence against him as the formation for a personal recovery; for to render a record evidence under the acts of Congress in the courts of a different State, it must not only show that the court had personal jurisdiction of the defendant or party against whom it is to be introduced, but must be authenticated strictly in accordance with said acts of Congress. It must be authenticated according to the form used in the court from whence it comes3 by the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate of the court, as well as by the clerk, under seal of the court, if there be a seal. A certificate of a person styling himself "one of the judges," is insufficient.4 And if there be no seal, then that fact should be shown in the certificate of the judge. If the proceedings be from a surrogate's court, of which the surrogate is both clerk and judge, then the authentication should show that fact, and the surrogate should first certify to his proceedings as clerk and then add thereto his certificate as judge, so as to authenticate the attestation of the clerk as to his being such and as to its being in due form of law so as to bring it within the acts of Congress; and the proper way is, to use the very language of the act. If there be a seal of the court, then the seal must be affixed to the certificate of the clerk, and it will not be sufficient if only to the certificate of the judge. His certificate needs no seal under the act of Congress. And if the judge's certificate does not state that the clerk's is in due form, the record is inadmissible. So, the judge's certificate that the person certifying as such is clerk, and that his signature is genuine, is insufficient; it does not meet the requirements of the act of Congress.

9

The Acts of Congress Apply only to Courts of Record. This