
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    DEC., 1814.
    Windle Hinckle v. Adam Carruth.
    A verdict alone cannot be received as evidence of a judgment of another State; though it seems our courts have given effect to such judgments,, whenever they have found a single word or act of the court, from-which a judgment might be inferred.
    Motion to set aside a nonsuit. Assumpsit, in the Circuit Court of Greenville district, before Brevard, J., founded on certain proceedings of the court of Burke county, in North Carolina.
    At the trial, it was objected by the' defendant, that the proceeds ings produced in evidence were not duly authenticated, according to the act of congress. This objection was overruled. It was then objected, that it did not appear any judgment had been rendered. Upon inspection of the authenticated proceedings produced, it ap. penred that the plaintiff had brought an action against the defendant in the County Court in North Carolina, and had obtained a verdict for a certain sum of money ; but there did not appear any record of a judgment; or any thing to show that any judgmert had been given in the case pursuant to the verdict. It was alledged that in the County Court, in North Carolina, no judgment is ever entered up on verdicts obtained, and there is no minute made of the rendition of judgment, the verdict being considered evidence of a judgment; but there was no sufficient or legal evidence of this practice. The court therefore ordered a nonsuit, being of opinion that there ought to appear by the judicial proceedings produced in evidence, to support an action on a judgment of a court of record, that a judgment was in fact rendered, and made a matter of record. A formal judgment may not be necessary, but at least some evidence by matter of re,cord, which may be considered in lieu of a formal judgment; otherwise it could not be known in what cases judgment was arrested, or a new trial granted, &c. Some entry of the rendition of judgment, ought to appear, to do away the presumption that the whole of the judicial proceedings have not been certified and authenticated.
    The motion was argued the 6th December, 1814,
    all the judges present,
    by Yancey, in support of the motion, and B. Saxon, contra.
    
   Nott, J.

I am aware, that the proceedings in the inferior courts of North Carolina, and some of the Other States, are very irregular. I believe that judgments are never formally entered up. I am disposed, therefore, to extend all possible indulgence and lib. erality towards them ; and I believe our courts have given effect to them, wherever they have found a single word, or act of the court from whence a judgment could be inferred. But the verdict alone, ¡cannot be received as evidence of a judgment. The motion, there, fore, must be discharged.

Smith, Colcocb., Bay, and Gkimke, concurred.

Motion denied.  