"All records and exemplifications of books, which may be kept in any public office of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State or Territory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State or Territory, or country, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officers. If the said certificate is given by the presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand. and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or country aforesaid in which it is made. And the said records and exemplifications, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State,

1 Fed. R. 213. If the laws of a State show that the court in which the judgment was rendered consisted of but a single judge, it is not material in a Federal court that the certificate to the attestation of the clerk did not show that the certifying officer was the sole judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate. Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 299. The certificate of the judge that he is "one of the judges" of the court is insufficient. Stewart v. Gray, Hemps. 94; Gardner v. Lindo, 1 Cranch C. C. 78. The judge should certify that the attestation is in due form according to the laws of the State. Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 352. If a clerk of a court certifies at the foot of a paper which purports to be a record that the foregoing is truly taken from the

record of proceedings of his court, and if the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate certifies that such attestation of the clerk is in due form of law, it is to be presumed that the paper so certified is in due form, and is a full copy of the proceedings in the case, and is admissible in evidence; but if it proves to be a mere transcript of minutes taken from the docket of the court, it is not admissible. Ferguson v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408. Cf. Woodbridge & T. Eng. Co. v. Ritter, 70 Fed. R. 677. If a judgment has been recovered against a corporation by a wrong name, there may be a recovery in a suit on such judgment in another State brought against it by the proper name. La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404.

Territory, or country, as aforesaid, from which they are taken."

99 33

"It shall be lawful for any keeper or person having the custody of laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents of any foreign government or its agents, relating to the title to lands claimed by or under the United States, on the application of the head of one of the Departments, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to authenticate copies thereof under his hand and seal, and to certify them to be correct and true copies of such laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents, respectively; and when such copies are certified by an American minister or consul, under his hand and seal of office, to be true copies of the originals, they shall be sealed up by him and returned to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who shall file them in his office, and cause them to be recorded in a book kept for that purpose. A copy of any such law, judgment, order, decree, journal, correspond

33 U. S. R. S., § 906. See also Snyder v. Wise, 10 Pa. St. 157; Lawrence v. Gaultney, Cheves Law (S. C.), 7; King v. Dale, 2 Ill. 513; Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 157; Russell v. Kearney, 27 Ga. 96; Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo. 371; Karr v. Jackson, 28 Mo. 316; Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa. St. 208; and authorities cited in Bump's Fed. Proc., 617-619. This section does not impart to the authenticated State record anything more than "faith and credit," and does not extend the effect of a decision against a State to the United States, nor make an award or judgment which might be final against a State either obligatory in law or conclusive against the United States. Williams v. U. S., 137 U. S. 113, 186. Where a deed of land in Texas had been executed in accordance with the civil laws in Louisiana, and a copy furnished to the grantee as a second original, this copy was admitted in evidence, upon proof by the witness that he had examined the originals on file in the notary's

book; that the copy was a true one; that the notary before whom the conveyance was executed was dead; that the witness knew the handwriting, which was genuine; that the witness knew the handwriting of one of the subscribing witnesses; that such witness was dead; and that the signature of such subscribing witness was genuine. White v. Bromley, 20 How. 235, 250. A pardon certified under the great seal of the State was admitted in evidence. U. S. v. Wilson, Baldw. 78. A copy of a survey certified by the register, by the judge, and by the Secretary of State under the great seal, was admitted in evidence. Smith v. Redden, 5 Harr. (Del.) 321. The clerk's certificate should show that the judge is the presiding judge, or that he is the presiding judge for the district. Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo. 370. This statute does not apply to court records. Tarlton v. Briscoe, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 67; U. S. R. S., § 905; Snyder v. Wise, 10 Pa. St. 157; Law v. Gaultney, Cheves (S. C.) Law, 7.

ence, or other public document, so filed, or of the same so recorded in said book, may be read in evidence in any court, where the title to land claimed under or by the United States may come into question, equally with the originals." "

"The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little & Brown, shall be competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress, and of the several treaties therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof." 35

The publication by the government printing office of the supplements to the Revised Statutes are prima facie evidence, and the publication by that office of the pamphlet copies of the statutes and the bound copies of the acts of each Congress are "legal evidence of the laws and treaties therein contained in all courts of the United States and of the several States therein." 36

"In suits or informations brought, where any seizure is made pursuant to an act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant: provided that probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the court." "7

$269. Definition and use of an affidavit.-An affidavit is a declaration upon oath or affirmation before some persons having competent and lawful power and authority to administer the same. Affidavits are used in a suit in equity in three ways. In certain cases they must be annexed to a bill before it can be properly filed;1 certain documents may be proved by them at the hearing; and they are used in support of interlocutory applications. The manner of their use has been already de

2

34 U. S. R. S., § 907; Ten Cases v. U. S., 34 Fed. R. 101; Chadwick v. U. S., 3 Fed. R. 753; Williams v. U. S., 137 U. S. 113, 186.

35 U. S. R. S., § 908.

Pet. 342; The John Griffin, 15 Wall. 29; Clifton v. U. S., 4 How. 242; Taylor v. U. S., 3 How. 197; Buckley v. U. S., 4 How. 251; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114; U. S. v. Walla

36 28 St. at L. 601; 26 St. at L. 50; Walla, 44 Fed. R. 796; The Coquit

21 St. at L. 308.

37 U. S. R. S., § 909. See also Locke v. U. S., 7 Cranch, 339; The Luminary, 8 Wheat. 407; Wood v. U. S., 16

lam, 57 Fed. R. 706, 714.

§ 269. See § 87.

2 See § 269.

3 See ch. XV

scribed. It is unsettled whether the court has power to compel any one to have his affidavit taken," or to cross-examine an affiant, except, possibly, by means of a feigned issue.

8270. Manner of verifying an affidavit.-An affidavit must be sworn to; unless the affiant is conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, when he may, in lieu thereof, make solemn affirmation of the truth of the facts stated by him.' If the deponent be blind or unable to read, the affidavit must be read over to him by the officer before whom he swears to its truth.2 An affidavit, if made within the United States, must be verified before a judge of the court in which it is to be used, or a United States commissioner, or a notary public. If made without the United States, it may be verified before any secretary of legation, or consular officer within the limits of his legation, consulate, or commercial agency; or, perhaps, before any person who, by the laws of the country in which the affidavit is made, is authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. It has been said to be irregular to have an affidavit entitled in a suit in equity sworn to before the bill is filed."

§ 271. Title of an affidavit.-An affidavit should be correctly entitled in the cause or matter in which it is made. For, otherwise, it is said that the affiant cannot be convicted of perjury if his statements are false. several parties on either side, or

4 Supra, §§ 198, 232.

5 See Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292; Bacon v. Magee, 7 Cowen (N. Y.), 515; Day v. Boston B. Co., 6 Law R. (N. S.) 329. As to the right to compel a party to file an affidavit which he has read upon a motion, see Sinnot v. First Nat. Bank, 34 App. Div. 161.

6 See Day v. Boston B. Co., 6 Law R. (N. S.) 329; Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292.

$270. Equity Rule 91; U. S. R. S., S$ 1, 5013. Cf. Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 10.

But, it seems that, if there are both sides, it will be sufficient

ris Aq., 4 Wash. C. C. 601. Cf. 27 St. at L. 7.

4 U. S. R. S., § 1750.

5 Pinkerton v. Barnsley C. Co., 3 Y. & J. 277, n.

6 Baldwin v. Bernard, 9 Blatchf., note; s. c., Fed. Cas. No. 797. See Blake Cr. Co. v. Ward, Fed. Cas. No. 1,505.

§ 271.1 Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 415; Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 360; Goldstein v. Whelan, 62 Fed. R. 124. But see Bowman v. Sheldon, 5 Sand. (N. Y.) 657; Shook v. Rankin, 6 Biss. 477; s. C.,

2 Matter of Christie, 5 Paige (N. Y.), Fed. Cas. 12,804. Cf. supra, § 270.

242.

3 U. S. R. S., §§ 725, 945; L. 1876, ch. 304; 19 St. at L. 206; Haight v. Mor

2 Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 415.

3

to entitle it in the name of a single plaintiff and defendant, and after each to insert the word "others" or "another," according to the circumstances of the case. The omission of a party's christian name will not be a fatal defect. If the affidavit is correctly entitled when made, it can still be used after the title of the cause has been subsequently changed. If an affidavit of service be attached to papers which are themselves correctly entitled, it needs no separate title. An affidavit made or entitled in one cause cannot, it has been held, be used in another;" unless, perhaps, when the affiant is dead, insane, imbecile, or beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

§ 272. Form of an affidavit.—Every affidavit should begin with the venire,- that is, the name of the county,1 and in a Federal court the name of the judicial district; and if sworn to elsewhere than in that where the court is held, with the name of the State where it is taken; which is usually followed by the abbreviation Ss. for scilicet, or the English words to wit. Otherwise, it has been held, though not by a Federal court, that it may be disregarded as a nullity, even though the residence of an officer before whom it is sworn appear in the jurat. The English rule was that in all affidavits the true place of resi dence, description, and addition of every person swearing to the same, must be inserted; unless the affidavits were made by parties to the cause, who might describe themselves, in the affidavit, as the above-named plaintiff, or defendant, without specifying any residence, or addition, or other description.

3 White v. Hess, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 544; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 Ill. 288. But see Arnold v. Nye, 11 Mich. 456. 4 Maury v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 370.

5 Hawes v. Bamford, 9 Sim. 653. 6 Anon., 4 Hill (N. Y.), 597.

7 Lumbrozo v. White, 1 Dick. 150; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1774; Milliken v. Selye, 3 Denio (N. Y.), 54; Stacy v. Farnham, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 26. But see Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 62, 72; s. c., 2 Abbott's Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 47; Langston v. Wetherell, 14 Mees. & W. 104.

§ 272. Belden v. Devoe, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 223.

2 Sterrick v. Pugsley, 11 Flipp. 350.

3 Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 407; Lane v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 394; Burns v. Doyle, 28 Wis. 460; Smith v. Richardson, 1 Utah, 194; Barhydt v. Alexander, 59 Mo 189. But see Mosher v. Heydrick, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; s. C., 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 161; Stone v. Williamson, 17 Ill. App. 175; Young v. Young, 18 Minn. 90; State v. Henning, 3 S. D. 492.

4 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1775. See also Hinde's Pr. 451; Crockett v. Bishton, 2 Madd. 446.