Folsom v. Blood

58 N.H. 11
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1876
StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.H. 11 (Folsom v. Blood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Folsom v. Blood, 58 N.H. 11 (N.H. 1876).

Opinion

Stanley, J.

The attestation of the judgment by the clerk of the common pleas is not indispensable. Willard v. Harvey, 24 N. H. 344; Hall v. Manchester, 40 N. H. 410; Sumner v. Sebee, 3 Me. 223. *12 If it were prescribed by statute, the statute would be directory, and other evidence of the authenticity of the record would be received. Secombe v. Steele, 20 How. 94, 102. The clerk of the superior court, having the custody of the records of the common pleas, is the proper officer to furnish copies of those records, and his certificate is evidence of what they are. Carlisle v. Thompson, 5 N. H. 411; Mahurin v. Bickford, 6 N. H. 567, 570, 571; Hall v. Manchester, supra; 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 506.

Motion denied.

Allen, J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Secombe v. Steele
61 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court, 1858)
Inhabitants of Sumner v. Inhabitants of Sebec
3 Me. 223 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1824)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.H. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folsom-v-blood-nh-1876.