
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1811.
    Tobin v. Seay.
    A copy of an execution properly certified by the clerk of the court to whom the same shall be returnable, is admissible and sufficient evidence to prove the validity of a sheriff’s sale and title under the original execution.
    Motion to set aside a nonsuit, and for a new trial. Trespass to try titles, tried before Bay, J., in Lexington District. Plaintiff offered in evidence, in support oí a deed of conveyance from a sheriff, of the land, as sold under an execution offi. fa., a regularly certified copy of a judgment, from the office of the clerk of the District Court of Charleston, and an accompanying certificate, that execution of fi. fa. had issued thereon, with a further certificate of several renewals of execution ; also, copies of the same execu. tions, duly certified by the said clerk.
    This evidence was objected to, it being insisted that the original execution must be produced, in virtue of which the land was sold, or its non-production satisfactorily accounted for. This objection was sustained, and a nonsuit was suffered with leave, &c.
    In support of the motion in this court, Chappell, for the plain, tiff, was stopped by the court.
    Stark, for the defendant,
    contended, that a copy of an execu. tion cannot be admitted in evidence, if the original can be produced. That an execution is not a record, and cannot be exempli, fied as a record. That original executions may be kept by the sheriff, and the clerk cannot always certify. That by a late act of assembly, vol. 1, Faust’s Collec. 32, executions are to be returned to the clerk ; but this act does not affect the present case, the execution in question having been executed prior to the act of assembly. Cited 2 Bac. Abr. 611. Tit. Evid. Gill. Evid. Loffts 36. 1 Ld Raym. 732. 5 Burr. 2633.
   May 1, 1811.

Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. It is by no means clear, that an execution is not part of the record. But, be that as it may, it is the duty of sheriffs to return all execu. tions by them to be executed ; and it is the duty of the clerk safely to keep them. This was always their duty. An execution may, therefore, be considered as a record. A purchaser at sheriff’s sale ought not to be obliged to search for the original in any hands to which it may go. He is only bound to apply at the public office where the document ought to be kept; and the keeper of the document, which is a public paper, ought not to suffer it to go out of his custody without legal authority. An exemplification is all that a party can obtain. It is the best evidence the nature of the case admits of; because the courts would riot compel the clerks of courts to attend with the originals upon a subpoena duces lecum. The certificate of the clerk need not be accompanied, with his oath, that it is a true copy. He acts under an official oath.

Note. See Doug. 594, in note to 1he King v. J. Gordon. The correct principle seems to be laid down by Lord Holt; In a case of Lynche v. Clarke, viz., “That wherever an original is of a public nature, and would be evidence if produced, an immediate sworn copy thereof will be evidence.” 3 Salk. 154.

Motion granted.  