TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walton v. McKesson

Thomas G. Walton, Ex'r., Etc. v. William F. McKesson and Others.

Walton v. McKesson, 64 N.C. 77 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1870
Judges
Beade
Citations
64 N.C. 77
Headnotes
In an action upon a former judgment, the record of the judgment is the proper evidence thereof ; and its production cannot he dispensed -with, or supplied by any other evidence. Where the record of a judgment has been destroyed, the first step towards obtaining a remedy, is by proceeding in the Court where it was given, to the end that the record may be supplied.
Summary
ACTION for money due by judgment, tried upon demurrer to the complaint, by Mitchell, J., at Eall Term 1869 of Burke Court. The complaint alleged that a judgment had been obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants, at August Term 1861 of Burke County Court; that the record thereof was destroyed by the Federal forces under General Stoneman in the Spring of 1865, but that the plaintiff had a “certified memorandum of said judgment under the hand of the Clerk, dated March 29th 1865, showing the date and amount of the judgment, &c., which he stands ready to produce, together with other proof, if necessary, as evidence of his debt.” The defendant demurred, and assigned as cause, that it appeared by the complaint that there is no record of the the said supposed recovery, &c. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Beade

Beade, J.

In an action on a former judgment, the record of the judgment is the proper evidence thereof. Its production can not be dispensed with, or supplied by any other evidence. The reason is, that upon plea of mil tiel record, the court decides upon the ims^ection of the record itself.

The plaintiff’s remedy in this case, was, upon notice to the defendants, a motion in the original suit, to have a record made of the judgment, in place of that which was destroyed; and then to offer the record in evidence in this suit. It was neither necessary nor proper to make profert of the judgment, but to refer to it as of record, prout patet per recordum;

but instead of such reference, it is stated in the complaint as an excuse for not making profert, that the record had been destroyed.

*79 It is not desirable that the merits of a cause should be. prejudiced by technicalities, and the courts are liberal in allowing amendments to reach substantial justice. If upon the coming in of the demurrer, the plaintiff had obtained leave to amend his complaint, so as to refer to the judgment, as “remaining of record,” and upon motion in the original cause had made a record, it might have been offered on the. trial, but as the plaintiff joined in the demurrer, we are obliged to say that it ought to have been sustained. There is error.

Per, Curiam. Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1871–1872: 11887–1888: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Foulk v. Colburn48 Mo. 225 (1871)
  2. Goldman v. Kennedy21 Abb. N. Cas. 362 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1888)

Most recent

  1. Goldman v. Kennedy21 Abb. N. Cas. 362 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1888)
  2. Foulk v. Colburn48 Mo. 225 (1871)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list