
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    CHARLESTON,
    MAY, 1804.
    Bacon v. R. & P. Smith.
    ^yjjere it is shewn, or suggested, that a suit m the name of an absent. and foreign plaintiff, is brought., or prosecuted, without his knowledge or consent, the court will inquire into the authority of the agent, or attorney, on a rule to shew cause, why the action should not be dismissed ; but the objection eannot be urged by the defendant at the trial of the cause ; nor will it be required, that the authority should be proved by the strict rules of evidence, which apply in other cases; and where a letter of agency was produced, which purported to have been subscribed by the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses, and attested by them before the High Bailiff of the Isle of Man, it was held to be» p-ima facie at least, sufficient evidence of the authority.
    Motion for a new trial. At the trial of this cause in Charleston» before Bay, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was a British subject, resident abroad ; and proof of a power to an agent in fact, competent to authorise the attorney at law to bring and prosecute the, action, was required: whereupon a letter was produced, purporting to be a letier of agency under the hand and seal oí a person bearing the name of the plaintiff, and purporting 10 be subscribed by the writer in the presence of iwo witnesses resident abroad, and attested by them before the High Baiuff of the Isle of Man-The court admitted the paper, and was therewith satisfied : and the plaintiff had a verdict. The ground taken ou this motion was, that the said evidence was inadmissible.
    For the defendant it was argued that the courts of this country are not bound to admit prooi of this kind, and that to prevent frauds and imposition, more stnci proof is requisite. That the office of High Bailiff of the Isle of Man, is not of sufficient dig >ity and importance, to intiüe a certificate from that officer to be accredited in our courts, without further proof. That this was not a commer. dial question, aud therefore ought to be governed by the rules of the common law : and that this evidence was not the best the nature of the case admitted of.
    
      E contra,
    
    it was uiged that our acts of assembly authorize sucli proof: and A. A 1721, § 40, P. L. 1¡7, was cited, which allows certificates, &c. to be admitted in evidence; and also AA. 1787, § 3. P. L. 435, which authorizes the admission in evidence in our courts of >he testimonials, &c. of any court, or magistrate, empowered to give the same, of any foreign country, if in? that country like papers from this country are received and allow ed. In a commercial point of view, it is necessary that such evidence should be admitted. The provisions of our statute law cited sanction evidence of' this sort in proof of a debt; and Aere it was only offered to prove an agency. This proof was offered to the court; and the party had no right to object to it. It did not concern the merits of the cause. If the defendant owes the debt, he ought to pay it. If it is recovered in this action, the defendants cannot be made liable in another action at the suit of the same person. Whoever the plaintiff is, he must prove a debt to be due before he recovers it. If the agent is furnished with the necessary proofs for that purpose, it is pretty strong proof of his being an authorized agent. The court had a right to call on the agent to produce his power; hut the defendants had no such light. If the Court was satisfied, that was enough.
    Cseves, for the plaintiff. Wai. Drayton, tor the defendant^..
   By the court.

It may be necessary sometimes to inquire, and see whether ¡he agent, or attorney, of an absent, and foreign plaintiff, is legally authorized t*> sue in the name of the plaintiff. This may be done, where it is shewn, or suggested, that the suit is brought, or prosecuted, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff himself: and the action may, in doubtful cases, be suspended until the truth is known. But the proof of the power, or appointment of the agent, is never required to be made according to those strict rules of evidence, which apply in other cases. And the want of such satisfactory proof as shall clearly shew that the agent is authorized, is never to be taken advantage of at the trial by way of nonsuit. It ought to be on a rule to shew cause why the action should not be dismissed. In this case the proof of authority seems to have been, prima jade at least, sufficient.

Motion overruled.

Present, Trezevant, and Brevard. Justices.  