The States may not require other proof than that provided by Congress. But no State may make a law requiring a different method of authentication of such inter-State acts, records, and documents than those provided and contemplated by the provisions of the Constitution above referred to, and the acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof. Unwritten law provable by books of reports. The unwritten or common law of another State may be proven by the books of reports of cases adjudged in its courts.1 Private Laws. Private laws of a State are matters of fact, and when offered in evidence in the courts of another State or in a court of the United States, are to be proven as such in the ordiOfficial certificates thereof are not available.2 nary manner. Public Laws. The public laws of a State may be read in evidence in other States by being brought within the requisites of the act of Congress in that respect, and will be taken notice of without such requisites in the Federal courts; but private laws and special proceedings are to be proven as facts.3 Foreign Laws. In the proof of foreign laws, the evidence is to the court and not to the jury, and they must be proved as facts.4 Printed volumes. Printed volumes of the statutes purporting to be such are receivable as prima facie evidence of the statute laws of another State. Such volumes, certified to by the secretary of State, under seal of State, as correct copies of the statutes of a State, copied from the original rolls, are admissible as sufficient evidence of genuineness under the act of Congress." Clerk's Certificate. The form of the clerk's certificate and manner of certifying of a record of a court of one State for use in the courts of another State, is to be in conformity to the laws of the State where the judgment is rendered and where the certificate is made, and the certificate of the judge, chief justice or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the same is in due. form of law, is conclusive on that subject. Therefore, it is not 1 Cragin v. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 395. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 480, 481. 3 Ibid. Pickard v. Bailey, 26 N. H. 152; Story's Conf. of Laws, §§ 638, 688; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 486. Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 473; Dixon v. Thatcher, 14 Ark. 141; 1 Robinson's Practice, 253. 6 Wilson v. Lazier, 11 Gratt. 477; Sisk v. Woodruff, 15 Ill. 15. Simons v. Cook, 29 Iowa, 324; Brown v. Adair, 1 Stew. & Port. 49. The act of a fatal objection that the clerk's certificate is without a seal, if the judge certifies that it is in due form of law. Congress merely requires the seal, if there be a seal. By the local law of Iowa, the certificate of a judge is sufficient. It need not be that of the judge chief justice or presiding officer. 2 Presumption as to Laws of other States. In the trial of a cause which involves the common law of another State, the court will, in the absence of proof of what such law is, presume it to be the same as the law of the forum where the cause is being tried.3 But this presumption does not extend generally to statute laws, or laws of a penal nature, or embodying strict provisions or forfeitures against usury.4 The only presumption affirmatively entertained by courts against the limits of jurisdiction of courts of another State is, that the same is to be restrained within the limits of natural justice. 5 V. PROOF OF PROCEEDINGS OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. As a general principle it may be taken that the method of evidencing the proceedings of justices' courts among the several States is not within the act of Congress, but was intended to be left as at common law and the statutory regulations of the States themselves; therefore, such evidence should be conformed to the law of the State wherein the proceedings are to be used, when offered in evidence in the court of a different State than that wherein the proceedings were had.® Iowa Statute. In Iowa a State statute admits such proceedings in evidence from another State, when authenticated by the official certificate of the justice of the peace of such other State, certifying the records and proceedings, and supported by the offi 1 Simons v. Cook, 29 Iowa, 324. 2 Revision of Iowa of 1860, § 4058; Code of Iowa of 1873, § 3713; Laterett . Cook, 1 Iowa, 1. 3 Birdseye. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52; Ellis e. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186; 1 Rob. inson's Pr. 250, 251. Hull. Augustine, 23 Wis. 383. In Ellis . Maxson, 19 Mich. 186, the court say: "We certainly cannot presume that the Legislature of another cial certificate of the clerk of a court of records of the county of the justice's residence, stating that the justice is an acting justice of the peace of that county and that the signature to his certificate is genuine.1 Such certificate is also held to be sufficient if made by the successor of the justice who rendered the judgment. The statement as to the official character of the justice should have reference to the date of his proceedings thus anthenticated. VI. PROOF OF RECORDS OF OFFICE BOOKS. The records and exemplifications thereof of office books of public offices of the States and Territories, which do not pertain to any court, are provable and admissible in evidence in the several States, in virtue of the act of Congress of March 27, 1804, by attestation of the keeper of such records or books, with seal of his office annexed thereto, if a seal there be, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the county or district in which the office is kept, or certificate of the governor, or secretary of State, or chancellor, or keeper of the seal of State, that the attestation is in due form and is by the proper officer. But if the certificate be that of a presiding justice, it must also be authenticated by certificate of the clerk or prothonotary of the court, under seal of his office, that such presiding judge is duly commissioned and qualified. And if the certificate is by the governor, secretary of State, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal of State, in such case it must be sealed with said seal.3 Iowa Code of 1873, § 3714; Revision of 1860, § 4059; Railroad Bank v. Evans, 32 Iowa, 202. ? Railroad Bank v. Evans, 32 Iowa, 203. 82 U. S. Stat. at Large, 298, §§ 1, 2; R. S. of U. S. 2d Ed. § 906. Proceedings In Rem. Proceedings by writ of attachment against the property of non-resident and absent persons are authorized by law in most, if not all, of the States. Such proceedings being in rem are a means of subjecting the property, rights and credits of non-residents and absent debtors, or other non-resident or absent persons, against whom a right of action exists, to the plaintiff's demand. The proceeding is against the property, rights and credits, and not the person, of the defendant debtor, and, therefore, no personal judgment can, ordinarily, be rendered against him.1 Appearance of Defendant. If, however, the defendant appears in court to the action or proceeding, or is personally served with process within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, then the proceeding becomes also personal, and personal judgment may be rendered against him as in other cases, if a right to judgment be made out; but this does not prevent judgment of condemnation against the property attached, if proper cause is shown therefor. If no property is found and no personal service or appearance, the suit is at an end.4 1 Thompson v. Emmert, 4 McLean, 96; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean, 473; Warren Manf. Co. v. Ætna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 502; Hendrick v. Brandon, 9 Iowa, 319; Courtney v. Carr, 6 Iowa, 238; Banta v. Wood, 32 Iowa, 469; Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto, 714; Drake on Attachment, § 5. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300; Irvine v. Lowry, 14 Pet. 293; Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cr. 421; Hendrick . Brandon, 9 Iowa, 319. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300; Cooper v. Smith, 25 Iowa, 269. Courtney v. Carr, 6 Iowa, 238. Attachment Levy. If goods and chattels, rights or credits, be levied on by virtue of the writ of attachment, they are thereby placed within the custody of the law to abide the event of the suit or attachment proceeding, and a lien thereon is created by the levy in favor of the plaintiff for the amount he may recover in the suit. If the levy be on real property, a like lien attaches to the title thereof, and although the right to possession thereof does not, by virtue of the levy, vest in the officer, as in levies on personalty, yet the title to such real estate is thereby placed in legal custody to abide the proceedings in the cause. Condemnation and Sale. And if condemnation thereof and order of sale be made, the same relates back in effect to the date of the levy, and title passes in case of sale as from the date of levy.2 Only the Property Levied On is Bound, if In Rem. Although in point of practice such proceedings vary in different jurisdictions according to the statutes of the several States, the particulars of which it is not our purpose in this treatise to give, yet one great principle is common to them all, that so far as the proceeding is in rem it binds only that property of defendant, which by levy of the process of the court, is placed within the custody of the law and is by subsequent judgment of condemnation and sale ordered by the court to be sold.3 The Sale, if Regular Carries Title. But judgment of condemnation, and sale made thereunder by order of the court, of the property thus placed within its jurisdiction and the custody of the law, carries, if valid, the title and right of property, divesting it out of the defendant and vesting it in the purchaser, by operation of law, and is evidence of ownership and title wherever brought in question, whether within or without the territorial limits of the State; for, although the proceeding cannot reach the person of the defendant, who has had no day in 1 Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black, 101; Hacker v. Stevens, 4 McL. 535; Kennedy v. Brent, 6 Cr. 187; Drake on Attachment, § 224. 2 Laird v. Dickerson, 40 Iowa, 665. Livingston v. Smith, 5 Pet. 89; Boyd. Urquhart, 1 Sprague, 423; Westervelt v. Lewis, 2 McL. 511; Ricketts v. Henderson, 2 Cr. C. C. 157; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McL. 473; Warren Manf. Co. v. Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 502; Miller v. Dungan, 36 N. J. Law, 21; Clymore v. Williams, 77 Ill. 618; Fitzsimmons v. Marks, 66 Barb. 333; Drake on Attachments, § 5. 4 Moore v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 385. |