Kingman v. Cowles

103 Mass. 283
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 103 Mass. 283 (Kingman v. Cowles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kingman v. Cowles, 103 Mass. 283 (Mass. 1869).

Opinion

Wells, J.

The statutes of the United States, 1790, c. 11 and 1804, c. 56, passed in pursuance of the Constitution, art. 4, \ 1, require that records, authenticated in the manner therein prescribed, shall be admitted in all courts within the United States, and have full faith and credit therein. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes forbid the states from authorizing the proof of records in other modes, in their own courts. The statute of Massachusetts, Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 61, has provided another mode. It is not in conflict with the law of the United States, but simply omits one requisite which that law prescribes. It does not require a certificate of the judge that the attestation of the clerk to a copy of a record of the court is in due form. The objection, therefore, that the copy of the judgment roll offered in evidence in this case did not bear the certificate of the judge of the court, cannot be sustained.

The authentication conforms in all respects to the requirements of our statute. It bears the seal of the court and the certificate of the clerk. The clerk is the proper pustodian of the records; and the seal of the court attached to his certificate attests the possession of the record in the person who certifies. Records so certified are always received as true, primd facie, without proof in the first instance of their genuineness or of the official character of the person who assumes to act in such official capacity. Buttrick v. Allen, 8 Mass. 273. Commonwealth v. Chase, 6 Cush. 248. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 503. Chamberlin v. Ball, 15 Gray, 352. Webber v. Davis, 5 Allen, 393. Commonwealth v. Connell, 9 Allen, 488.

When any other officer than the clerk or prothonotary makes the certificate, it may be necessary that it should be made to appear, by the certificate, that the officer certifying has charge of the records. But the clerk is presumed to have such charge, and therefore his certificate to that effect is unnecessary.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

COMMONWEALTH v. THOMAS J. BABCOCK.
100 Mass. App. Ct. 527 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2021)
Peeples v. Peeples
119 S.E.2d 710 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Kaufman v. Kaitz
89 N.E.2d 505 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Lowry v. Greenlay
1 Mass. App. Div. 320 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Portland Maine Publishing Co. v. Eastern Tractors Co.
289 Mass. 13 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Bay State Wholesale Drug Co. v. Whitman
182 N.E. 361 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Willock v. Wilson
178 Mass. 68 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Garden City Sand Co. v. Miller
41 N.E. 753 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1895)
Ritchie v. Carpenter
28 P. 380 (Washington Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 Mass. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kingman-v-cowles-mass-1869.