
    HINSON vs. WALL.
    X. A mero memorandum of the clerk stating the amount of damages assessed by the jury, with the words, “ then judgment for” the sum so found, added, does not constitute a judgment on which an action of debt can be maintained, although the clerk certifies, in proper form, that it is “ a true and perfect transcript and exemplification of the record.”
    2. The proceedings of the courts of the several States composing the United States, will be presumed to be governed by the common law, until the contrary is shown.
    ERROR to the Circuit Court of Lowndes.
    Tried before the Hon. E. Pickens.
    Wall bi’ougbt debt against Hinson, on tbe record of Anson Circuit Court in tbe State of North Carolina, to wbicb Hin-son pleaded nul tiel record, and other pleas.
    On tbe trial in tbe conrt below, tbe plaintiff offered in evidence a record duly certified, in wbicb the judgment entry in tbe Circuit Court of Anson county, in North Carolina, is in these words: “ Tbe following jury was sworn and empannei-led (here follow twelve names,) who find all tbe issues in favor of tbe plaintiff, and assess bis damage to five hundred and eighty-five dollars; then judgment at September term, 1844, $585 ; tbe costs arising in tbis suit, due to tbe county, to witnesses, and officers of court, is $134 92.” The clerk of tbat court certifies tbat tbe record in which tbis entry appears, is “a true and perfect transcript and exemplification of tbe record,” &c. Tbe judge’s certificate, conforming to tbe requisition of tbe act of Congress, is also attached.
    To tbe reading of tbis record as evidence of a judgment against bim, tbe defendant, bj bis. counsel, objected, but bis objection was overruled, and be excepted.
    Tbe defendant requested tbe court to' instruct tbe jury, that tbe judgment entry contained in. tbe record, with tbe certificates, (wbicb were admitted to be regular;) was not sufficient of themselves to authorize a recovery in this case; wbicb tbe court refused, and instructed the jury that tbe record and judgment entry, with tbe certificates, were sufficient to authorize a recovery, without further proof. To tbe refusal of tbe court to charge as requested, and to tbe charge given, tbe defendant excepted, and tbe case is brought here for revision on writ of error.
    Elmore and BolliNG, for plaintiff in error:
    Tbe court erred both in admitting tbe record as evidence, and instructing tbe jury that tbe record and judgment entry and agreement wore sufficient to authorize a recovery without further proof. Tombecbee Bank v. Strong’s Ex’r. 1 S. & P. 187 ; same Bk. v. Godbold, 8 Stewart, 240.
    Tbe pleadings of plaintiff below allege there was a judgment in North Carolina for $719 fW Tbe defendant below alleged by plea that there was no such record. If this court should be of opinion that tbe judgment entry is sufficient as to tbe amount found by tbe jury, there is certainly no judgment for the cost, and tbe jury only certify $585; and unless there is a judgment for the cost, tbe court instructed tbe jury erroneously, and also erred in admitting tbe record as evidence. If tbe record was offered as evidence only of a judgment for $585, tbe plaintiff should have disclosed that to be tbe purpose for wbicb be offered it. Kenan v. Holloway, 16 Ala. Rep. 61. If tbe record was evidence, tbe charge1 of tbe court was too broad. Under tbe pleadings, tbe special instructions, if any was necessary, should have been asked by plaintiff below.
    Included in tbe judgment, if there is any, is tbe clerk’s charge for tbe transcript and bis seal, and called by bim costs. There is no judgment, but only a memorandum of tbe clerk.
    Geo. W. StoNE, for defendant in error:
    1. Tbe judgment entry is sufficient. It contains tbe parties litigant, the verdict, and tbe amount of the judgment. These are the only facts which the judgment need show.
    2. Bach State has the right to determine its own forms of pleadings and judgments. If the record shows who were the parties, that a verdict was rendered, and the amount of the judgment, and the certificate conforms to the act of Congress, our courts are bound to accord to it absolute verity. Crawford v. Simonton, 7 Porter, 110; McRae v. Stokes, 3 Ala. 401; White v. Strother, 11 ib. 720. The act of Congress makes the certificates supply the place of evidence, and they prove the proceedings to be in due form, and that the court had jurisdiction. Several of the decisions cited below hold, that this court will ex officio take notice of the laws and forms of judicial proceedings in other States. Could not a recovery be had upon the record of a judgment from Louisiana, or New York, or any other State where the common law has been abolished or changed, without any other proof than that afforded by the certificates. Could not a recovery be had upon a judgment recovered in a statutory action; as in our trials of the right of property; or summary proceedings against officers? 5 Litt. 350; 4 Oowen’s R. 296; 1 Johns. Cases, 238; 9 Cranch, 122 ; 7 ib. 48; 13 Serg. & R. 362.
    3. The exceptions raise only the plaintiff’s right to recover. No point is made by the record as to the amount of the recovery to which he is entitled. Nor is any discrimination made between the different items which constitute his demand.
   LIGON, J.

The court below erred in allowing the record to go to the jury, as evidence of a judgment for the sum claimed in the declaration, against the objection of the defendant. The plea was mil iiel record, and the paper offered, although regularly certified, contains no judgment against the defendant in the suit in North Carolina. That which purports to be a judgment, is, at most, but a memorandum of the clerk, and not the solemn act of the court, which finally declared and adjudged the rights of the parties in the suit to which it pertains. Tombecbee Bank v. Godbold, 3 Stew. 240.

It is insisted, however, that this may be the form in which judgments are regularly entered in the courts of North Carolina, and if sucb entry would be effectual there as a judgment, tbe same force and effect should be allowed to it in this State. We are not inclined to deny the proposition, that a judgment, good in a sister State, would be good here; but, until the contrary appears, we must hold that the common law prevails in North Carolina, and thus holding, we cannot do otherwise than conclude that, the entry recited in the exemplification, offered in evidence in this case in the court below, is not a judgment of the court.

If the memorandum in the record is, in fact, regarded as a good judgment entry in the State of North Carolina, it might be so averred in the declaration, and the laws or practice of that State would be evidence, when rightly presented, to establish it.

The court not only erred in allowing the record to go to the jury, but also in refusing the charge asked, and giving the one excepted to.

Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.  