Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Shafer
Opinion
This is an action to enforce a California judgment against defendant, who appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.1
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in receiving in evidence an exemplified copy of the California judgment and the assignment of that judgment without requiring proper authentication. Defendant objected to both exhibits on the ground that no witness was called to identify the signature on the assignment, so as to properly authenticate that document.
That objection was well taken. The general rule is that to be admissible in evidence a signed written document must be authenticated by the testimony of a witness who can identify the signature as that of the person claimed to have signed the document.2
Statutes have been adopted relating to the authentication of deeds, affidavits and some other documents, including some documents acknowledged before notaries public.3 The same is true of foreign judgments.4 No statute has been adopted in Oregon, however, that eliminates the usual requirements for the authentication of an unrecorded assignment of a judgment,5 particularly when that judgment is a [90] foreign judgment and the assignment was notarized before an out-of-state notary public, as in this case.6
Because of error in receiving in evidence the assignment of the California judgment, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
549 P.2d 1129 (Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Shafer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.