
    Columbia,
    
      November Term, 1815.
    G. & C. Lindenberger vs. Henry Rosseau.
    Goodwin, for Motion.
    
    Stark, Contra.
    
    In debt on judgment an exemplification of the judgment againstthe1 princip al andagainst defendant, his bail, was produced; but the certificate of the clerk stated the same to be a correct transcript of the judgment against A. the principal, without men-tioningthe defendant. On plea of mil tiel record, — - I - eld that the exemplification was not admissible; and plaintiff' was non-suited.
    Debt on judgment from Virginia. Pleas, nul tiel record, and nil debet.
    
    Motion to set aside the decision of the court on the first plea, and to reinstate the cause, so as to try by it the issue of the second.
    This was an action on a judgment obtained in the county court of Loudon, against the defendant, the bail of one Jones. An exemplification, duly certified under the act of Congress, was produced by the plaintiffs. The defendant in support of the plea of nul tiel record, objected to the certificate of the clerk of the court, because it therein expressed only that the annexed proceedings contained a judgment against Jones, and not a judgment against the present defendant. To this the plaintiff answered that it was not necessary, as the expression of the judgment againstthe principal was sufficient, inasmuch as the judgment against the bail was incidentally, consequent, and itself detailed at full length in the exemplification, together with six continued executions against him, all duly returned unexecuted, which fully cured any supposed omission in the certificate of the clerk. The court, however, supported the objection, and gave judgment on ^16 P^ea in favour of the defendant. From which the plaintiffs appealed*
   Nott, J.

Whether the proceedings in this case were regular, according to the laws and practice of the courts of Virginia, was for their courts to determine, and not for this court. But whether the certificate accompanying them is such as to entitle them to be given in evidence in our courts, is for tis to determine. I am of opinion it is not. For, however intimately connected the parties may appear to be', we must consider this record either embracing two cases, one against Moore and the other against Rosseau; or we must consider it as one case against Jones and Rosseau, and not against Jones alone. In either case the certificate is defective; for it does not reach the proceedings against Rosseau at all: it barely, states that the <( foregoing is a true and complete transcript of the record and proceedings had in the suit wherein G. .& C. Lindenberger are plaintiffs, and J. Jones, defendant.” The true construction of which is, that as far as the transcript relates to Jones, it is true ; but so far as the transcript relates to Rosseau, whp is the only defendant in this court, it is unsupported by any evidence. The motion, therefore, must be refused.

Grimke, Smith, Bay and Brevard concurred.

Colcock, J.

1 cannot conceive that it is proper 1 . . . . . to nou-suit the plaintiff in this case; for it is clear that the judgment was obtained against the defendant Rosseau as well as Jones, and the omission of the clerk to call it a judgment against Rosseau, does not alter the judgment: perhaps it may be customary for the clerks of the Virginia courts to certify in this way. As the suit appears to be carried on against both in the same proceedings, it might lead to this mode of expression. At all events, the exemplification is, in my opinion, in conformity with the requisites of the act of Congress. I am, therefore, in favour of the motion.  