Crane vs. Hardy. rer, and direct that it be so certified to the circuit court for the county of Wayne. Certified accordingly. CRANE VS. HARDY. Whether in ejectment for land purchased at sheriff's sale by one not a party to the execution, it is necessary to prove the judgment on which the execution was issued, quære.1 The journal of the court, in which its judgments and all its proceedings are entered from day to day, and signed by the court, is sufficient evidence of a judgment.2 A warrant of attorney and plea of a defendant, taken from the files in the case, is evidence, in the same court, of the appearance of the defendant in the suit. By appearing and going to trial in an attachment suit, defendant waives all prior irregularities. An order made by the court, under R. S. 1858, for the sale of real estate taken in an attachment suit, goes to the sheriff in office for the time being, and not to his predecessor who served the writ of attachment. -Defendant in ejectment claiming title nnder proceedings in chancery, divesting the title from plaintiff's grantor, must prove the whole record, or all which is material. Platt v. Stewart, 10 Mich. 260. Judgment of circuit court is proved by files and original entries, which are a substitute for the record. Norvell v. McHenry, post, 227; Prentiss v. Holbrook, 2 Mich. 372; Kenyon v. Woodward, 16 id. 326. Docket entry, without proof of files, entries or proceedings, insufficient. Kenyon . Baker, 16 id. 373. If a record is not found in proper place, law presumes it never existed. Hall v. Kellogg, 16 id. 135. Journal entries and orders and decrees in chancery are originals. Lathrop v. Southworth, 5 id. 436; Thayer v. McGee, 20 id. 195. - Minutes of proceedings, including service and judgment, though not in form a record, admissible. Kirschner v. The State, 9 Wis. 140; the agh not signed, Eastman v. Harteau, 12 id. 267; what is a record of, Potter v. Eaton, 26 id. 382. -Presumption is in favor of the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction. Due service will be inferred from judgment. Pensoneau v. Heinrich, 54 Ill. 271; contra, Randall v. Sanger, 16 id. 27; 27 id. 145; Smith v. Trimble, 27 id. 152. Minutes of judge and verdict not sufficient without the record. Gurnea v. Seeley, 66 id. 500; nor oral testimony. Cheney . Bonnell, 58 id. 268. Crane vs. Hardy. *The court will presume the law of a sister state is the same as that [57*] of their own state, unless the contrary is shown. A judgment is not a contract within the inhibition of the constitution of laws impairing the obligation of contracts.3 To pass the title to real estate sold on execution under the act of 1841, it is not necessary it should appear from the officer's return to the execution, that either of the appraisers was chosen by defendant, or that he had an opportunity to choose one. The settled doctrine as to sales under decrees and judgments is, that the purchaser is not concerned with anything except the judgment, levy and sale. All other questions are between the parties to the judgment and the officer making the sale. CASE reserved from Livingston Circuit Court. Ejectment for land purchased by plaintiff on the 13th of July, 1841, at sheriff's sale, upon an order granted by the circuit court of that county, in a suit in attachment, in which Oliver P. Thayer was plaintiff and Hardy was defendant. On the trial, plaintiff did not produce any formal record of the judgment in the attachment suit, but, to prove the judgment, offered the journal record of the court, in which its proceedings are entered from day to day, in evidence, which was objected to by defendant. To show defendant appeared in and defended the attachment suit, plaintiff offered in evidence, from the files of the case, the warrant of attorney and plea of the defendant, which were also objected to by defendant. Plaintiff also offered in evidence the order of sale in the attachment suit, with the sheriff's return, which defendant objected to on the ground, 1st, That the sale and return were not made by the officer who served the writ of attachment, but by his successor in office; 2d, That the land should not have been appraised under the act of 1841, but should have been sold at public vendue to the highest bidder, according to the laws of the state on the 6th of January, 1837, the date of the note on which the judgment was rendered in the attachment suit; 3d, -The appraisal act of 1841, prohibiting the sale of real estate on execu tion, unless it would bring two-thirds of its value as appraised by three disinterested freeholders, held unconstitutional and void as to preexisting contracts. Willard v. Longstreet, 2 Doug. 172; subsequently repealed. Crane vs. Hardy. The sale was not in conformity with the laws of the state in force at the time of the rendition of the judgment, which was in November, 1840; 4th, It is not stated in the return the land was sold for the highest bid, or to the highest bidder. The sheriff's deed to plaintiff, of the land in question, was next offered in evidence by plaintiff, and objected to by defend[58*] ant. The objections were severally overruled by *the court, and the evidence allowed to go to the jury, and exceptions were taken by defendant in each case. The attachment suit was on a promissory note made in the state of New York, payable generally, and at no particular place. Defendant also requested the court to charge the jury, that the plaintiff must show the regularity of all proceedings in the attachment suit, from the commencement thereof to the rendition of the verdict. Also, that the sale was insufficient, under the act of 1841, because it did not appear the appraisers were chosen in accordance with that statute; that is, it did not appear the defendant, or any one chosen on his behalf, appeared or was requested to appear and select an appraiser. The court refused to give the instructions, and defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and a case presenting the above questions was made and reserved for the opinion of this court. Kingsley & Morgan, for plaintiff. Hawkins, for defendant. By the Court, WING, J. It is difficult to determine whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff in this suit to show, in addition to the order of sale and his deed, that there was a judgment upon which the order was founded. It is true, as a general proposition, that in cases where the proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, the party seeking any benefit from them is bound to show their conformity to the statute under which they are had. Assuming, for the present, that the proceedings in the case of Thayer v. Hardy were, so far as the rights of the defendant in this suit are in question, according to the course of the Crane vs. Hardy. common law, the authorities do not agree as to the necessity of showing a judgment. Mr. Greenleaf, in his second volume upon evidence, sec. 316, states the rule to be, that "where a plaintiff claims as a purchaser under a sheriff's sale, made by virtue of an execution against the defendant in ejectment, it is sufficient to show the execution and the proceedings under it, without producing a copy of the record of the judgment itself; for the debtor might have applied to have the execution set aside if it had been issued without a valid judgment to support it; but not having done so, it will be presumed, in an action against him, that the *judgment is right." He cites 6 M. & S. [59*] 110; 5 Esp. 22, 23; and 3 Wash. 546; but he says this point was otherwise decided, and the judgment was required to be proved in an ejectment against the debtor himself, in Doe v. Smith, 1 Holt's Cas. 599, n.; 2 Stark. 199, n.; and 1 H. & Gill, 172. Judge Cowen, in his notes to Phillips' Evidence, pp. 1080, 1081, cites many American authorities and some English authorities to show that plaintiff is bound to produce a judg ment, on the ground that otherwise the defendant's property might be divested when in fact there was no judgment, or only one utterly void, and therefore he must show such a judgment as at the least would be valid until reversed, though he cannot be affected by any mere irregularity either in the judgment or execution, not rendering them entire nullities. Without attempting to determine which is the true rule and which best accords with the analogies of the law, if we concede for the purposes of this case that it was necessary for the plaintiff to show a judgment, was the proof of the judg ment offered by the plaintiff admissible? It is a general rule, that if a plaintiff brings suit upon a judgment, he must produce in evidence a judgment record, not only to support the allegations in his declaration, but because his action is founded directly upon the record of a judg ment which he avers to be still in full force and unsatisfied. In England and in New York the judgment record or roll Crane vs. Hardy. is made up by the attorney of the party recovering judgment The short minutes of the proceedings in the cause, kept by the clerk, do not set forth at large the orders and judgments of the court, and they are not signed by the judge. They are only intended and are used as a guide in making up the judg ment roll, which is not a transcript of the minutes and the pleadings. This roll, when made up by the attorney with the form of a judgment, is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk. When this is done, and not until then, is there any judgment rendered upon the verdict of the jury, upon which an execution can issue. In this state, all the orders made and judgments rendered in a cause by the court, are entered at large upon the journal. By R. S. 1838, p. 382, sec. 7, this is required to be done each day, and this journal is required to be signed each day [60*] by the court. The judgment record *is a mere transcript of the "writ, pleadings, proceedings and judgment." R. S. 1838, p. 410, sec. 10. Within twenty-four hours after judgment is entered, or immediately thereafter by order of the court, execution may be issued and levied upon property, and the property be sold without any other record. of the proceedings or judgment. R. S. 1838, p. 451, sec. 5. If, then, the judgment so recorded and signed in the journal of the court, is sufficient to warrant the issuing of an execution and a levy and sale of property, I cannot perceive why it is necessary for the purchaser to show a more formal judgment to sustain his purchase, than would be necessary to authorize the sale; for the validity of the sale does not depend upon records afterwards made up, but upon a then existing authority derived from a judgment and execution. The judgment comes in question collaterally the suit is not brought upon it; it is a judgment entered in the same court. The journal entry or judgment, together with all interlocutory judgments or orders, with the pleadings in the cause, are before the court and may be inspected by them. The defendant insists, that as the plaintiff claims through a proceeding not according to the course of the common law, |