
    A. R. Lawrence v. Joel Gaultney.
    The judgment of a Justice’s Court of another State is entitled to “full faith and credit” here, as a judicial proceeding, and is a good ground of action.
    But, as its authentication is not provided for by the Acts of Congress, it must be proven on Common Law principles.
    How such a judgment may be most conveniently proven.
    Before Evans, J., at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1839.
    Sum. pro. to recover the amount of two judgments rendered against the defendant by justices of the peace in North Carolina. The evidence produced consisted of the original judgments and executions, with a certificate of the Clerk of the County Court, that the persons whose names were signed to the judgments were magistrates, and that their-signatures were genuine; and the certificate of the presiding magistrate of the county court, that the person certifying was clerk. The Court held that an action might be brought on such a judgment, but that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to establish it, and therefore ordered a nonsuit.
    Plaintiff appealed, on the ground that the opinion of the Court on the inadequacy of the evidence was erroneous.
   Curia, per Eyans, J.

Since, the case, of Clark & Smith v. Parsons, (Rice’s R. 16,) there can be no doubt an action may be brought on such a document as the plaintiff has endeavored to establish. It is a judicial proceeding, and we are bound, under the constitution, to give it full faith and credit. But, if neither Congress, uor the State Legislature, has prescribed any mode for proving such judgments, (and the Acts of Congress, of 1790 and 1804, do not apply to .this case,) then we must find in the Common Law the rules by which they are to be established. The fundamental rules of evidence are, that the best shall always be produced, and that every fact shall be proved by the oaths of witnesses, unless the law has prescribed some other mode. The plaintiff had to show, 1, that a justice had jurisdiction of his case by the law of North Carolina; 2, that the person who decided it was a justice; and 3, that he did, in fact, render the judgment alledged. The last of these requisites would have been sufficiently established by the paper adduced as the original proceeding before the magistrate, if the signature of the latter had been proven, as-in Clark & Smith v. Parsons. Still, the proof must have been deficient, as in that case, for want of the best evidence on the other two points; for the certificates of the clerk and presiding magistrate of the county were not under oath'; nor are they, by any enactment, made authentic in proceedings of this character. The law of North Carolina, by which the justice had jurisdiction of this case, might have been proved under the provisions of the act of Congress of' 1790, or, according to our precedents, by the production of the printed laws of that state. In the same manner, it might be shown that the person who signed the judgment was a justice, if his appointment had been made by the legislature. If the appointment ivas by the governor, or by any other authority', then an exemplification of the office books, certified according to the act of Congress of 1804 (2 Story’s P. L. 947), would have proved it.

See 9 Rich. 175; 5 Strob. 33 ; 2 Sp. 282; 1 Bail. 242; Harp. 418 ; 3 Brev. 543, or 2 Tread. 743 ; 2 Bay, 555, 487. An.

Motion dismissed-; the whole Court concurring.  