Summary
In Thompson v. Manrow, 1 Cal. 428, defendant was sued in this state as John P. Manrow upon a judgment entered against John P. Manrow in the city of New York.
Summary of this case from Lee v. MurphyOpinion
04-01-1851
THOMPSON v. MANROW.
——, for Plaintiffs. John Chetwood, for Defendant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. ——, for Plaintiffs. John Chetwood, for Defendant.
By the Court, BENNETT, J. The action was brought upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of the City of New York.
Two points are made by the appellants: one, that the certificate of exemplification is insufficient; the other, that there is no proof that the John P. Manrow sued here is the same John P. Manrow against whom judgment was rendered in New York. I think neither position tenable.
The exemplification of the record is attested by the Clerk under the seal of the Court, and the presiding Judge of the Court certifies that the attestation is in due form of law. This is all that is required by the Act of Congress of May 26, 1790. (Peters U. S. Statutes, vol. 1, p. 122; 1 Green-leaf Ev. Sec. 504 to 507.)
As to the second point: The authorities establish that, prima facie, John P. Manrow, against whom the judgment in New York was obtained, is the John P. Manrow now sued. (Cow. and Hills Notes, 1301, and cases there cited; 1 Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 575 in note.)
Judgment affirmed.