
    Best vs. Davis, impleaded with others.
    In an action to foreclose a mortgage, a copy of the notice of Us •pendens was introduced in evidence, with a certificate of the register of deeds of the proper county attached, stating that a notice of which that offered was a true copy, was filed &c.; but such certificate was defective in failing to state “that he had compared the copy with the original, and that it was a correct transcript therefrom.” (R. S., ch. 139, sec. 71.) Reid, that this court would not reverse a judgment for the plaintiff on account of this defect in the certificate, where the defendant, without specifying such defect, merely objected in general to the admission in evidence of the instrument and certificate, and each of them.
    APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County.
    Action to foreclose a mortgage. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, among other things, a notice of lis pendens, to which there was attached an affidavit of one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, stating that, on &c., he filed a notice, of which that was a copy, in the office of the register of deeds of said county; and also a certificate of the register of deeds of said county, which stated that, on &c., there was filed in his office “ a notice of pendency of which the within is a true copy.” “To the introduction in evidence of such paper writing, and the said affidavit and certificate thereon, and to each and every of them, the defendants objectedbut the objection was overruled. Judgment of foreclosure and sale in the usual form; from which the defendant John Davis appealed.
    
      Jenkins & Hiclcox, for appellant:
    it has been held by this court, that, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff should be required to prove the filing of the notice of lis pendens, either by producing the original notice with proof of its filing, or a copy of it certified by the register in the manner prescribed by the statute. Manning v. McGlurg, 14 Wis., 350; R. S., ch. 13, sec. 145 ; ch. 189, sec. 71. If the latter method of proof is adopted, the certificate must conform to the statute. Ordway v. Conroe, 4 Wis., 45; Hackett v. Bonnell, 16 id., 471. In the latter case, the court say that “ the certificate must conform to the provisions of seo. 71 of tbe chapter, and it must appear that be bas compared tbe copy with tbe original, and that it is a correct trans-script therefrom.” The certificate to the paper sought to be introduced in this case does not so state, and its introduction having been objected and excepted to, tbe judgment should be reversed.
    
      Cary & Pratt, for respondent.
   By the Court,

Dixon, C. J.

Tbe objection to tbe form of tbe register’s certificate is too vague and uncertain to be available in this court. It is, in general terms, to tbe introduction of tbe notice of pendency of action, without specifying any ground upon which it is made. It should be specific, and clearly point out tbe defect complained of, in order that tbe opposite party may, if be can, remedy it upon tbe trial below. In most cases, the opposite party bas it in his power to- obviate such defects at tbe trial. They are usually tbe result of clerical mistakes or oversights, and it would be most unjust to allow them to come here upon general objections which give neither the party nor the court any information at all. Such a practice cannot be sustained.

Judgment affirmed.  