Talcott v. Delaware Ins.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Talcott v. Delaware Ins.

23 F. Cas. 651, 2 Wash. C. C. 449

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1810

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 F. Cas. 651 (Talcott v. Delaware Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Talcott v. Delaware Ins., 23 F. Cas. 651, 2 Wash. C. C. 449 (circtdpa 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

considered the case of Church v. Hubbart [2 Crunch (6 U. S.) 187] conclusive upon this point, against the authenticity of the record. The explanation of the witnesses seems to remove the objection made at the last trial, but the record not being authenticated by a seal, or by proof of its being a true copy, properly and regularly made, it cannot be read.

The defendants offered in evidence a copy of the manifest of the cargo of this vessel, taken in at Havana, certified under the hand of an officer called a notary of registers, without a seal, with a certificate annexed, signed by three notaries, under the seal of the college of notaries, stating that full faith and credit has and ought to be given to the authentications of the notary of registers. This notary certifies, that the paper which he authenticates, is a copy of the manifest of this vessel, made by him at the request of Don Mora, and which is at present in the notarial office, under his charge. Mr. Du-ponceau was examined as a witness, and stated, that from his experience, and having frequently seen copies of papers of this kind from the Spanish colonies, they are always authenticated in this way; but he admitted that he had never been in the Spanish colonies, and that he derived his opinion from no other source than that above mentioned.

THE COURT thought the evidence inadmissible. It does not appear that this notary has charge of these papers, and that he has authority to authenticate them. The copy should have been proved, in the regular way, to be a true copy.

The defendants moved for a nonsuit; there being no invoice produced of the cargo, and the bill of lading furnishing no evidence of plaintiff’s interest, or the value of it.

THE COURT refused to direct the nonsuit. The bill of lading is evidence of interest, and the jury can say. what is the value of the boxes of sugar and segars mentioned in it.

The defendants then permitted the jury to find a verdict, without further argument; intending to move for a new trial.

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

THE COURT

considered the case of Church v. Hubbart [2 Crunch (6 U. S.) 187] conclusive upon this point, against the authenticity of the record. The explanation of the witnesses seems to remove the objection made at the last trial, but the record not being authenticated by a seal, or by proof of its being a true copy, properly and regularly made, it cannot be read.

The defendants offered in evidence a copy of the manifest of the cargo of this vessel, taken in at Havana, certified under the hand of an officer called a notary of registers, without a seal, with a certificate annexed, signed by three notaries, under the seal of the college of notaries, stating that full faith and credit has and ought to be given to the authentications of the notary of registers. This notary certifies, that the paper which he authenticates, is a copy of the manifest of this vessel, made by him at the request of Don Mora, and which is at present in the notarial office, under his charge. Mr. Du-ponceau was examined as a witness, and stated, that from his experience, and having frequently seen copies of papers of this kind from the Spanish colonies, they are always authenticated in this way; but he admitted that he had never been in the Spanish colonies, and that he derived his opinion from no other source than that above mentioned.

THE COURT thought the evidence inadmissible. It does not appear that this notary has charge of these papers, and that he has authority to authenticate them. The copy should have been proved, in the regular way, to be a true copy.

The defendants moved for a nonsuit; there being no invoice produced of the cargo, and the bill of lading furnishing no evidence of plaintiff’s interest, or the value of it.

THE COURT refused to direct the nonsuit. The bill of lading is evidence of interest, and the jury can say. what is the value of the boxes of sugar and segars mentioned in it.

The defendants then permitted the jury to find a verdict, without further argument; intending to move for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F. Cas. 651, 2 Wash. C. C. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talcott-v-delaware-ins-circtdpa-1810.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack