Opinion
June Term, 1824.
1. This Court cannot, upon a record of the Circuit Court of the United States, offered in evidence, inquire into the fact whether the judgment of the Circuit Court was regularly entered up, or whether the subsequent proceedings had thereon were regular.
2. An execution when returned becomes part of the record, and a certified copy thereof is evidence.
DETINUE, for a negro. The negro belonged to George Bell, who died in 1794, after duly making his will by which he bequeathed the negro in dispute to his infant grandchildren. The executors of the will assented to the legacy, and the negro was delivered to the guardian of the infants. A judgment was obtained by the administrator of Samuel Cornell, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of North Carolina, against the executors of George Bell, for the sum of $2,011.60. The executors in this suit pleaded plene administravit, and the plea was found for them on their showing that they had paid the legacy to (26) the legatees. A sci. fa. issued to the guardian of the legatees to show cause why the plaintiffs should not have judgment and execution against the legatees of the assets that came to their hand. In November, 1799, there was a judgment rendered on the sci. fa. and at the same term the plaintiff (Cornell's administrator) sued out a writ of fi. fa. on the judgment, returnable to the next term of the Circuit Court, and the marshal thereupon levied on and sold the negro in dispute to the present plaintiff. The defendant derived his title from the legatees under the will of George Bell.
Gaston for appellant.
(27) Ruffin and Hawks for appellee.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the legality of the execution, which issued before the expiration of twelve months from the time judgment was rendered in favor of Cornell's administrator. The court was of opinion that the execution was legal, and gave judgment accordingly; whereupon defendant appealed.
Before judgment was signed, the defendant moved for a new trial, because the original execution in favor of Cornell's administrator was not produced, but a copy, certified under seal of court by the clerk of the United States court. This was refused by the court.
Whether the scire facias issued regularly in this case, or whether the judgment was regularly entered up upon it, this Court cannot inquire. While it continues in force it is binding upon the parties. It can only be reversed by a writ of error. It has been pronounced by a court as stable and as strongly constituted by the Constitution and laws of the country as the Court we sit in; and it is a court, too, of competent jurisdiction.
(28) As to the second objection, it may be observed that when an execution is returned it becomes part of the record of the suit, and a copy of it, when properly authenticated, may as properly be given in evidence as a copy of any other record. I, therefore, think the rule for a new trial should be discharged.
And of this opinion was the rest of the Court.
Cited: Snead v. Rhodes, 19 N.C. 388; Walters v. Moore, 90 N.C. 46; Brittain v. Mull, 99 N.C. 492.