
    David Buffum vs. Eleanor Stimpson.
    The legal presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is in favor of the jurisdiction of a court of record of another state, which has assumed to exercise jurisdiction over a subject matter in controversy between parties residing there.
    Under an order of a court of record of another state that certain property shall be discharged from a mortgage thereon, upon the filing in court within a specified time of a bond, with sureties to be approved by the clerk, and with condition to pay the sum, if any, which should be found due upon the mortgage debt, a duly certified record of the court which shows that within the specified time a bond was received and placed on file by the clerk, and that subsequent proceedings were had which necessarily implied an approval and acceptance of the bond, is sufficient to prove the discharge of the property from the mortgage.
    Replevin of the schooner “ Juniata Patten.” The plaintiff claimed title under a bill of sale from Stephen A. Huhbell. The defendant claimed title under an assignment of a prior mortgage from Hubbell to William S. Amos. The plaintiff contended that the schooner had been discharged from the mortgage, by certain judicial proceedings in Wisconsin. '
    At the trial in the superior court, before Ames, J., the plaintiff was allowed, under objection, to put in evidence the record of proceedings in the circuit court of the county of Milwaukee, in Wisconsin, by which it appeared that Hubbell filed in said court a complaint against Amos, setting forth that the debt which the mortgage was given to secure had been paid, and praying that the schooner might be discharged from the mortgage. Upon this complaint,0after further proceedings had, the court, on the 3d of December 1859, ordered that the schooner be released, provided Hubbell within five days should execute a bond in a specified sum, with one or more sureties, to be approved by the clerk of said court, with condition for the payment of any balance which might be found due to Amos, &e. The record continued thus: “ Afterwards, to wit, December 7, 1859, bond filed, as follows : ” [a copy of the bond was then set out, and which appeared to be in conformity with the order of the court.] There was a certificate, by a “ court commissioner,” that the surety in the bond had sworn that he was worth double the penalty of the bond above all debts, liabilities and property exempt from execution. Subsequent proceedings were had to ascertain the amount due from Hubbell to Amos, and an adjudication fixing the amount.
    It was conceded that both parties to the above proceedings were residents in Wisconsin, and were before the court; and the judge ruled that the record was sufficient to prove an acceptance and approval of the bond, and that it was not competent for the defendant to show by parol evidence that the clerk did not approve it. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    S. II. Phillips, for the defendant.
    ,S. B. Ives, Jr. 8f G. Wheatland, for the plaintiff.
   Chapman, J.

There is no validity in the objection that the court in Wisconsin had not jurisdiction. The record being properly authenticated, the presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction. Bissell v. Wheelock, 11 Cush. 277. The court also appears, by the constitution of Wisconsin to be a court of general jurisdiction ; the parties lived there, and the mortgage was made and recorded there.

The bond appears to have been received and placed on file by the clerk, and the subsequent proceedings were based upon it. The judgment for damages could have had no other basis than a discharge of the lien upon the mortgaged vessel, by the acceptance of the bond in its stead. This must be regarded as an approval of the bond according to the order of the court.

Exceptions overruled.  