Kinseley v. . Rumbough

*195 Merrimon, J., (after stating tlie facts). The Constitution of the United States, Art. IV., §1, provides that, “fullfaith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State, and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and ¡Droceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” In the exercise of the power thus conferred, Congress, at an early period of the government, enacted the statute, (Rev. Stats. U. S., §905; The Code of N. C., vol. II., pp. 732-3), which among other things provides, that “the records and judicial proceedings of the Courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, (any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), shall be proved and admitted in any Court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the Court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the Judge, Chief Justice or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form.” The statutory provision is operative and binding everywhere in all Courts within the United States, and countries subject to their jurisdiction. It plainly appears from its terms, that such records must have, the attestation of the clerk of the Court whose record is offered in evidence, and the seal of that Court attached, if there be one. If there be no seal, this fact should appear in the certificate of the clerk. The purpose of this attestation of the clerk and seal, usually in the form of a certificate, is to identify the record in question, as truly set forth in the transcript. In addition to such attestation, the Judge, Chief Justice or presiding magistrate of the Court where the record is thus attested, must certify that the attestation is in due form of law in the State where it is given, the object being to give judicial assurance that the law of the State regulating the attestation of records as to form has been observed by the clerk. Thus the record will appear *196 when it is offered in evidence just as it would in the Courts of the State from which it came, and have the like faith and credit. These are the essential requisites of a proper authentication of the record and judicial proceedings of a Court of record in another State. It is not necessary that the official character of the certi- - fying Judge or magistrate shall be certified by the Governor under the great seal of the State, nor that the clerk of the Court shall certify under his hand and seal of office, that the certifying Judge or magistrate is duly commissioned and qualified. The provisions of the statute, (Rev. Stats. U. S., §906; The Code of N. C., vol. 2, p. 733,) prescribing how another class of records and exemplifications of books shall be authenticated, do not, as contended by the counsel of the appellant, apply to records of Courts and judicial proceedings ; it is expressly otherwise provided. Records of Courts do not come within the terms, scope or purpose of these provisions. The authentication of the record in question, while containing redundant matters, and two certificates of the Judge, when one was sufficient, contains all the essential requisites prescribed by the statute first above cited. The clerk attests the record bj^ his certificate and signature and the seal of the Court annexed. This is full for the purpose. The Judge certifies fully and sufficiently that the attestation of the clerk is in due form of law. This is sufficient. Lee v. Gause, 2 Ired., 440; Shown v. Barr, 11 Ired., 296; Warren v. Wade, 7 Jones, 494; Eaton’s Forms, p. 616; 1 Gr. Ev., §§504, 505, 506. There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed. No error. Affirmed. Note—The case of Williams v. Rumbough, argued at the same time as the above case, involved the same points.