Folsom v. Blood

58 N.H. 11
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1876·Published

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

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

58 N.H. 11 (Folsom v. Blood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)