
    Baker and others vs. King.
    When an issue is sent out of chancery to he tried before a jury, the judge can give no judgment upon the finding of the jury; he can only certify the record of the finding to the chancery court.
    The finding of the jury on an issue sent from a court of chancery to be tried in a- court of law, must appear by the record certified by the judge. A certificate of the judge’s made from memory will not be sufficient.
    On a former hearing of this cause in this court, an issue in chancery was ordered to be sent down to the circuit court to be submitted to a jury. They passed upon it, and the cireuit court gave judgment that the plaintiff recover the damages assessed, instead of certifying the finding into chancery as ordered. The circuit judge made out and transmitted the following certificate:
    “State of Tennessee, ) Madison county. )
    
    “I, J. Haskell, judge, presiding in said court at July sessions, 1832, do certify that the within issue sent down from the court of chancery to find the value of the horse therein mentioned, was put to the jury as mentioned within, who found the value of said horse at six dollars and twenty-five cents, which the court ordered to be certified to said court of chancery; but on the next morning when the entry was presented, the court directed the same to be altered so as to embrace only the finding of the jury as to the value of the horse, and to be certified to the court of chancery, which was believed by the court to be so done. Given under my hand and seal.
    J. Haskell, (seal.”)
    On this certificate the Chancellor proceeded and made his decree against the appellant.
    
      J. Read, for complainants.
    
      P, M. Miller, for defendant.
   Peck, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This proceeding is not in character with that precision and certainty required in legal proceedings. The object in sending down an issue of fact to be tried by a jury, is to assist the court in a case where, from the nature of the inquiry, the mind of the Chancellor would otherwise remain in doubt. The necessity of so doing in this case was settled by this court, and the Chancellor could not dispense with it.

When the fact was found, it should have appeared before the Chancellor by the record. The memory of the Judge before whom the issue was tried, could not be substituted for that which nothing but record evidence should prove.

The decree must be reversed, and a trial de novo of the issue had, which when regularly certified to the Chancellor, will be the basis of the decree.

Decree reversed.  