Smith v. Frost
This text of 5 Hill & Den. 431 (Smith v. Frost) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The common pleas clearly erred in considering the proof of a levy deficient. There was abundant evidence of that to warrant the finding of the jury.
To the objection that a judgment must be shown, the justice answered by opening his docket at the proper place and averring that he had entered a judgment. Neither party insisted on going into particulars; and the question is, whether the judgment was sufficiently proved. The docket should, before the revised statutes, have been proved as the general docket of the justice, with his handwriting; or his official certificate required by the then statute should have been produced. Less, however, will now do. (2 R. S. 196, 2d ed. § 245.) By the true construction of the section referred to, the docket of a justice is evidence per se, when the cause is before himself, just as would be an original record in a court to which it belongs. The vertificate of the justice is necessary only when a transcript is relied on.
The judgment of the common pleas should be reversed, and that of the justice affirmed.
Ordered accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 Hill & Den. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-frost-nysupct-1843.