Joseph Story: Power of Congress as to Proof of State Records and Proceedings

Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)by Joseph L. Story

Print |

Email |

Power of Congress as to Proof of State Records and Proceedings§ 1297.§ 1298.§ 1299.§ 1300.§ 1301.§ 1302.§ 1302[a].§ 1303.§ 1304.§ 1305.§ 1306.§ 1307. FOOTNOTES
   1. Art. 4.
   2. The Federalist, No. 42.
   3. Journal of Convention, p. 228, 305, 320, 321.
   4. See Starkie on Evid. P. 9. § 92, p. 251, and note to American ed. P. 4, p. 569; Appleton v. Braybrook, 6 M. & Selw. 34,; Livingston v. Maryland Insurance Company, 6 Cranch, 274; S.C. 2. Peters's Cond. R. 370; Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cranch, 1, 38; S.C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 229; Raynham v. Canton, 8 Pick. R. 293; Conseequa v. Willings, 1 Peters's Cir. R. 225, 229; Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187, 238; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 385; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335, 343; S. C. 2 Peters's Cond. R. 273; Picton's case, 24, Howell's State Trials, 494, etc.; Vandervoorst v. Smith, 3 Caine's R. 155; Delafield v. Hurd, 3 Johns.R. 310. See also Pardessus Cours de Droit. Cornmet. P. 6. tit. 7, ch. 2, partout.
   5. See authorities in preceding note, and Walker v. Whittier, 1 Doug. R. 1; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. BI. 409; Johnson's Dig. of New-York Rep. Evid. V; Starkie on Evidence, P. 2, § 67, 206; Id. § 68, p. 214; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462; Bigelow's Dig. Evid. C., Judgment, D. E. F. H. I.; Hitchcock v. Aickin, 1 Caine's R. 460.
   6. See authorities in preceding notes; and Starkie on Evid. P. 2, § 67; p. 206 to 216, and Notes of American Ed. ibid.; Plummer v. Woodbourne, 4 Barn. Cresw. 625.
   7. Starkie on Evid. P. 2, § 67. p. 206 to 216; Bigelow's Dig. Evid. C. and cases cited in Kaims's Equity, B. 3, ch. 8, p. 375.
   8. Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. R. 515, 543.
   9. This was done in Massachusetts by the Provincial act of 14 Geo. 3, ch. 2, as to judgments of the courts of the neighbouring colonies. See Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462, 465; Ancient Colony and Province Laws, [ed. 1814,] p. 684.
   10. See Kibbe v. Kibbe, 1786, Kirby R. 119; James v. Allen, 1786, 1 Dall. R. 188; Phelps v. HoIker, 1788, 1 Dall. R. 261; 3 Jour. of Cong. 12 Nov. 1777, p. 493; S. C. 1 Secret Journal, p. 366; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine's R. 460, 478, 479.
   11. Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Peters's Cir. R. 74, 78 to 80; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine's R. 462.
   12. Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Peters's Cir. R. 74, 80, 81; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462, 467; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. R. 515, 544, 545.
   13. See Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462, 467; Hitchcock v. Aicken, 1 Caine's R. 460; Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Peters's Circt. R. 74; Field v. Gibbs, Id. 155; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Mass. R. 515, 544, 545.
   14. By the act of 27th March, 1804, ch. 56, the provisions of the act of 1790 are enlarged, so as to cover some omissions, such as state office book's, the records of territorial courts, etc.
   15. MiIls v. Duryee, 7 Cranch. R. 481; Hampden v. M'Connell, 3 Wheat. R. 234; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 12, p. 243, 244; Sergeant on Const. ch. 31, [ch. 33.]
   16. Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. R. 462, 467; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cowen's R. 292; Borden v. Fitch, 13 Johns. E. 121.