Folsom v. Blood
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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 N.H. 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folsom-v-blood-nh-1876.