
    FORDYCE v. WOLFF.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    October 25, 1915.)
    Evidence ©=>348—Official Documents—Seal.
    Where the seal of a court of a foreign state is attached to some of the documents attached to the exemplified copy of the judgment sued on, but it is omitted from the copy of the judgment, such copy is inadmissible in evidence, and judgment rendered on it alone is erroneous.
    [Ed. Mote.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1361-1383; Dec. Dig. ©=>318.]
    <@z^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Margaret H. Fordyce against Charles Wolff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGF, and SHEARN, JJ.
    Joseph M. Levine, of New York City (David Haar, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    Terry Parker, of New York City, for respondent.
   SHEARN, J.

The exemplified copy of the record in judicial proceedings of courts of foreign states is admissible in evidence, when attested by the clerk of such court and the seal of the court annexed thereto, if there be a seal. The documents attached to the alleged exemplified copy of the judgment show that the court had a seal, for the seal is affixed to them. The clerk, however, omitted to affix the seal to the exemplified copy of the judgment.

Defendant’s objection thereto; although purely technical, was valid, and as, in the absence of this document, there was no evidence of a recovery o-f the judgment, the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the' event. All concur.  