COURT OF RECORD. of record, it speaks of courts whose proceedings are duly recorded by authorized persons State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245, 251, 9 Am. Rep. 196 (citing Ex parte Cregg, 6 Fed. Cas. 796). The common-law definition of a "court of record" is a court that hath authority to ine and imprison. De Lovio v. Boit (U. S.) 7 Fed. Cas. 418, 438 (citing Groenvelt v. Burwell, Salk. 200; Grenville v. College of This classification of courts of record is Physicians, 12 Mod. 386, 388; In re Greon- made by Sir Matthew Hale: "Courts are of velt, 1 Ld. Raym. 213, 3 Bl. Comm. 24; Bac. | two kinds: First, courts of record; second, Abr. "Courts," D 2, p. 101); Erwin v. United States, 37 Fed. 470, 488, 2 L. R. A. 229; Wahrenberger v. Horan, 18 Tex. 57, 59; Hooker v. State (Ind.) 7 Blackf. 272, 273; Bucher v. Thompson, 32 Pac. 498, 7 N. M. 115. A "court of record" is defined to be a court where the acts and proceedings are enrolled in parchment for a perpetual memorial and testimony. The Thomas Fletcher (U. S.) 24 Fed. 481, 482 (citing 3 Black. Comm. 24); Erwin v. United States (U. S.) 37 Fed. 470, 488, 2 L. R. A. 229; Bucher v. Thompson, 32 Pac. 498, 7 N. M. 115; Bellas v. McCarty (Pa.) 10 Watts, 13, 24; Wheaton v. Fellows (N. Y.) 23 Wend. 375, 377; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 422, 94 Am. Dec. 742; Lenox v. Pike, 2 Ark. (2 Pike) 14, 19; Lenox v. Pike, 2 Ark. (2 Pike) 14, 19; Wheaton v. Fellows (N. Y.) 23 Wend. 375, 377; Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 422, 94 Am. Dec. 742; Adair's Adm'r V. Rogers' Adm'r (Ohio) Wright, 428, 429; Planters' & Mechanics' Bank of Columbus v. Chipley, Ga. Dec. 50, 51, pt. 1; Wheaton v. Fellows (N. Y.) 23 Wend. 375, 377 (citing and approving 3 Bl. Comm. 324). The privilege of having these enrolled memorials constitutes the great leading distinction in English and American law between courts of record and courts not of record, or, as they are frequently designated, superior and inferior courts. Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 422, 94 Am. Dec. 742. A court of record is one the history of whose proceedings is perpetuated in writing. Adair's Adm'r V. Rogers' Adm'r (Ohio) Wright, 428, 429. A court of record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate, designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of the common law. Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal. 220, 225; United States v. Hall (N. M.) 21 Pac. 85, 86; Bucher v. Thompson, 32 Pac. 498, 7 N. M. 115. A court of record is sometimes defined to be a court which has a seal. Ingoldsby Juan, 12 Cal. 564, 580. A "court of record" is a court whose proceedings are fully recorded by authorized persons, such as clerks or prothonotaries. Ex parte Cregg (U. S.) 6 Fed. Cas. 796. A court of record necessarily requires some duly authorized person to record the proceedings. When an act speaks of courts not of record. Of courts of record, there is this diversity, namely: First, supreme; second, superior; third, inferior. The latter he styles inferior courts of record." Rhinehart v. Lance, 43 N. J. Law (14 Vroom) 311, 314, 39 Am. Rep. 592. It is urged that this is not a "court of record," because, although it has a clerk and record, it has no seal. But this suggests too narrow a definition of the words "courts of record," as these words are employed in modern days, and too broad a definition, perhaps, as they were formerly used. In England and in some of the states every court which had jurisdiction to fine and imprison was a court of record, and the very erection of a new jurisdiction with power of fine and imprisonment made instantly a court of record. 3 Bl. Comm. 24, 25. has power to fine therefore, plainly a the older definition. Cal. 220, 224. The city criminal court and imprison, and is, court of record within Ex parte Thistleton, 52 County commissioners. A court of record, as defined by Blackstone, is a court having power to inflict fines for contempt. Thus, where the board of county commissioners had such power, it thereby became a court of record, and its acts could only be proved by the records thereof. State v. Conner (Ind.) 5 Blackf. 325, 327. As used in Act Cong. April 14, 1802, authorizing district courts to naturalize aliens, and providing that any court of record in any individual state, having common-law jurisdiction, and a seal and clerk, or prothonotary, shall be considered a district court, within the meaning of the act, is not simply a tribunal that has a recording officer and seal, and in fact keeping a permanent record of its proceedings; for the probate court and the court of county commissioners Would fulfill all of these requirements, and yet neither of these tribunals is deemed technically to be a court of record. It must be an organized judicial tribunal, having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate desig nated generally to hold it, and proceeding public book and goes to their successors, according to the course of the common law. their courts are courts of record. Adair's It is distinguished from the case of a jus- Adm'r v. Rogers' Adm'r (Ohio) Wright, 428, tice of the peace, on whom certain judicial 429. powers are conferred by law. Two centuries ago, in the case of Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1 Salk. 200, Chief Justice Holt said: "When- of record, as they do not enroll on parchment Justices of the peace do not hold courts (or paper) their proceedings, and do not hold plea according to the course of common law et armis, or have jurisdiction beyond 40s. of real or mixed actions or action quare vi Columbus v. Chipley, Ga. Dec. 50, 51, pt. 1. originally. Planters' & Mechanics' Bank of A justice court in Pennsylvania is not a court of record. A docket and short minutes of his proceedings are all that is kept by the justice. Hence the act of Congress relating to the manner in which records and proceedings of courts of another state shall be proved does not apply to the judgment of a justice court, but such judgments are "judicial proceedings" to which full faith and credit is required to be given by the Constitution of the United States. Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 Ohio (5 Ham.) 546, 547. Courts of justices of the peace are not courts of record. They do not proceed according to the course of the common law, and are confined strictly to the authority given them by statute. Therefore a suit cannot be maintained in one state on a judgment obtained in a justice's court in a sister state, unless the statute organizing such court is shown. Thomas v. Robinson (N. A court of record is one which has jurisdiction to fine or imprison, or having jurisdiction of civil cases above 40 shillings, and proceeding according to the course of the common law. 1 Inst. 117b, 260a. Whether a court be a court of record does not depend upon the fact that it does or does not keep a record of its proceedings, or that it is or is not required by law to do so. The court of county commissioners is not a court of record. Woodman v. Inhabitants of Som-Y.) 3 Wend. 267, 268. erset County, 37 Me. 29, 37, 38. A justice court is a court of record. Stidham v. Thatcher (Del.) 47 Atl. 1005, 1006, 2 Pennewill, 567; Stone v. Proctor (Vt.) 2 D. Chip. 108, 113. A court that is bound to keep a record of its proceedings, and that may fine or imprison, is a "court of record." A justice court is within that definition. Hooker v. State (Ind.) 7 Blackf. 272, 273. Justices of the peace being required to keep a docket, in which to make fair and accurate entries of all suits before them, with their proceedings thereon, which docket is a The words "court of record," as used in a statute prescribing the time within which an action on a judgment may be brought, do not include justices of the peace, however true it may be that for some other purMead v. poses they were courts of record. Bowker, 46 N. E. 625, 168 Mass. 234 (citing In re Gladhill, 49 Mass. [8 Metc.] 168, 170; Thayer v. Commonwealth, 53 Mass. [12 Metc.] 9, 11). The justice's court of the city of Albany is not, as between party and party, a court of record, though it may be for some pur poses. Wheaton v. Fellows (N. Y.) 23 Wend. 373, 377. A justice court is not a court of record. Searcy v. Hogan (U. S.) 21 Fed. Cas. 927. Courts of record are such as have general jurisdiction of causes of action, and the acts of which are authenticated by seal and recorded in its official records. Courts of justices of the peace are not courts of record, as they do not proceed according to the courts of common law, but are confined to the authority given them by statute, and can take nothing by implication, but must show their authority in every instance, and must comply with the forms prescribed by the statute creating them. Thomas v. Robinson (N. Y.) 3 Wend. 267, 268. Police court. The police court of Lowell is a court of record, within Act Cong. April 14, 1802, relating to the naturalization of aliens by courts of record, and is to be holden by learned, able, and discreet persons, appointed and commissioned by the Governor, pursuant to the Constitution, vested with all the civil and criminal jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and exercising a common-law jurisdiction. Ex parte Gladhill, 49 Mass. (8 Metc.) 168, 170. See, also, Bannegan v. Murphy, 54 Mass. (13 Metc.) 251, 253. Probate court. torney was in one sense an officer of the court, he was not such an officer as was meant or referred to by that term as used in the statute, so as to authorite an attorney for a party to issue process of the court. Bailey v. Williams, 6 Or. 71, 73. The expression "officer of the county court," in Pen. Code Ga. § 1092, providing that any officer of the county court, having a claim for insolvent costs, may present to the county judge an itemized bill of the costs claimed, and, when the same is approved and entered on the minutes of the county court, the order of approval shall be a warrant on the county treasurer payable out of the fines and forfeitures arising in the county court, does not include any other person than one who is directly and officially connected with that court, and hence does not include officers of the superior court. Hardwick v. Burke, 39 S. E. 433, 113 Ga. 999. The probate court of New Mexico, having a seal, and all its orders, decrees, etc., being entered of record, which imports verity, and having power to fine and imprison and considerable common-law jurisdiction, is a court of record authorizing its clerk to administer oaths. Bucher v. Thompson, 32 Pac. 498, 7 N. M. 115. But see United States v. Hall, 21 Pac. 85, 86, 5 N. M. 178, holding COURTS-MARTIAL. that the same court was not a court of record. The "court of probate," though of limited jurisdiction, is a court of record with large powers, and as to proceedings within its jurisdiction cannot be said to be, in the ordinary sense of the term, an inferior court. The functions of the court are judicial, and not merely ministerial, resting on the discretion of the judge, not only in making the order of sale, but in executing titles. State v. Burnside, 33 S. C. 276, 278, 11 S. E. 787, 788. COURT OFFICER. The county treasurer is not an officer of the court, within Rev. St. c. 3027, as to whom a motion on the motion docket is made notice, not only to the officer, but to the sureties. He is a county officer, not connected with the court, and only subject to its control by proceedings had in due course of law. Caldwell v. Guinn, 54 Ala. 64, 66. Under Rev. Code, § 3577, making disclosure of indictment by an "officer of court" or grand juror an indictable offense, it is held that a deputy sheriff is an officer of court within the meaning of the statute. White v. State, 44 Ala. 409, 412. An attorney at law is an officer of the court, and, if his authority is denied, the burden of proving that he is unauthorized rests on the party making the denial. Schlitz v. Meyer, 21 N. W. 243, 244, 61 Wis. 418. Code, 1166, declares that all process authorized by the Code to be issued by any court or officer thereof shall run in the name of the state of Oregon, and be signed by the officer issuing the same, and, if issued by the clerk of the court, he shall affix thereto his seal of office. Held, that while an at As court, see "Court." Courts-martial were instituted for the trial of naval and military offenses, and existed as early as the reign of James II, and probably had their origin in the ancient court of chivalry. They are regarded as a necessity in every civilized government, in order to properly discipline the military forces by punishing offenses therein. The tribunal is recognized as a court in the elementary works. Bouvier defines it to be "a military or naval tribunal which has jurisdiction of offenses against the law of the service, military or naval, in which the offender is engaged." Greenleaf says: "A court-martial is a court of limited and special jurisdiction." 3 Greenl. on Ev. 470. A court-martial has all the elements of a court. It has judges to hear the evidence and to determine the facts and apply the law. It has parties, prosecutor and defendant. It has pleadings and a formal trial, renders judgment, and issues process to enforce it. In short, it does everything within the sphere of its jurisdiction which any judicial tribunal can do to administer justice. People v. Van Allen, 55 N. Y. 31, 35. The court-martial is one of the ordinary judicial institutions of the country, employed in time of peace as well as in time of war to administer justice according to the articles of war upon persons actually or constructively in the military service. Carver v. United States (U. S.) 16 Ct. Cl. 361, 385. In the language of Attorney General Cushing, "a court-martial is a lawful tribunal existing by the same authority that any other exists by, and the law military is a branch of law as valid as any other, and it differs from the general law of the land in authority only in this: that it applies to offi cers and soldiers of the army, but not to other | opinion is that the jurisdiction of such courts members of the body politic, and that it is limited to breaches of military duty." In re Bogart (U. S.) 3 Fed. Cas. 796, 801 (citing 6 Op. Attys. Gen. 425). Courts-martial "are lawful tribunals existing by the same authority as civil courts of the United States, have the same plenary jurisdiction in offenses by the law military as the latter courts have in controversies within their cognizance, and in their special and more limited sphere are entitled to as untrammeled an exercise of their powers." In re Davison (U. S.) 21 Fed. 618, 620. A court-martial is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is a creature of the statute-a temporary judicial body authorized to exist by acts of Congress under specified circumstances for a specified purpose. It has no power or jurisdiction which the statutes do not confer upon it. Deming v. McClaughry (U. S.) 113 Fed. 639, 650, 51 C. C. A. 349. In Wise v. Withers, 7 U. S. (3 Cranch) 331, 2 L. Ed. 457, the court reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court because a court-martial had no jurisdiction over a person not belonging to the militia, and its sentence in such case, being coram non judice, furnishes no protection to the officer who executes it. This decision proves only that a court-martial was considered as one of those inferior courts, with limited jurisdiction, whose judgments may be questioned collaterally. They are not placed on the same high ground with the judgments of a court of record. Ex parte Watkins, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 193, 208, 7 L. Ed. 650. A court-martial, under the laws of the United States, is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. It is called into existence for a special purpose and to perform a particular duty. When the object of its creation has been accomplished, it is dissolved. Thus, in Wise v. Withers, 7 U. S. (3 Cranch) 331, 2 L. Ed. 457, according to the interpretation given it by Chief Justice Marshall in Ex parte Watkins, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 193, 209, 7 L. Ed. 650, 655, a court-martial was ranked as one of those inferior courts of limited jurisdiction whose judgments may be questioned collaterally. McClaughry v. Deming, 22 Sup. Ct. 786, 791, 186 U. S. 49, 46 L. Ed. 1049; Barrett v. Hopkins (U. S.) 7 Fed. 312, 313. The naval courts-martial were instituted under Act Cong. April 23, 1880, which created a naval code of martial law for the punishment of crimes and offenses committed in the naval service of the United States. It has been from the beginning an adjudicated principle that the federal courts have no criminal jurisdiction, except what is expressly conferred upon them by act of Congress, but naval courts-martial have jurisdiction to try all crimes and offenses whatever committed in the United States navy, and the sounder is in such cases exclusive, and the courts or the United States of civil jurisdiction have no lawful cognizance of such cases. "Courtsmartial come under a distinct and peculiar code," says Lord Mansfield; "an established military code, which the wisdom of judges has formed, which punishes all particular crimes, and all crimes committed by persons belonging to the navy, and not therein specified, according to the laws and customs in such cases at sea." United States v. Mackenzie (U. S.) 30 Fed. Cas. 1160, 1162. COURTS OF ORDINARY. "The courts of ordinary in Georgia are courts of original, exclusive, and general jurisdiction over decedents' estates, and the subject-matter of their orders and judgments are no more open to collateral attack than the judgments, decrees, or orders of any oth er court." Veach v. Rice, 9 Sup. Ct. 730, 737, 131 U. S. 293, 33 L. Ed. 163. COURTS OF SAME CLASS OR GRADE. Within the meaning of Const. § 34, providing that all laws relating to courts shall be general and of uniform operation, and the proceedings and practice of all of the courts of the same class or grade, so far as regulated by law, shall be uniform, the circuit and the county courts, so far as they have concurrent jurisdiction, are courts of the same class or grade. McLain v. Williams, 75 N. W. 391, 392, 11 S. D. 60. COURTS OF SESSIONS. Bacon, in his Abridgment, title "Courts of Sessions," etc., says: "Sessions held for the general execution of the authority of the justices of the peace, which are usually holden in the four quarters of the year, are called general sessions'; and sessions holden on a special occasion, for the execution of some particular branch of the authority of justices of the peace, are called 'special sessions.'" The term "courts of sessions" in Laws 1859, c. 339, § 4, giving the courts of sessions power to grant new trials, includes the court of general sessions of the city and county of New York. People v. Powell (N. Y.) 14 Abb. Prac. 91, 93. COURTS OF THE STATE. The term "courts of the state," within the meaning of the statute relative to the service of process in any of the courts of the cludes the Circuit Court of the United States commonwealth on foreign corporations, insitting in Pennsylvania. Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369–376, 24 L. Ed. 853. Insolvent Law Minn. 1881 (Gen. Laws 1881, c. 148) § 1, declares that, whenever the property of any debtor is attached or levied on by any officer by virtue of any writ or process issued out of a court of record of this state, etc., such debtor may make an assignment of all his property, etc. Held, that the term "court of record of this state" meant a domestic court of record, and was not limited to courts which derived their jurisdiction from state laws only, but inIcluded as well federal courts sitting within the territorial limits of the state; they being regarded as domestic courts, inasmuch as they, as well as the state courts, enforce the same laws. Simon v. Mann, 23 N. W. 856, 33 Minn. 412. COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. The courts of the United States are courts established under the authority of the United States. "They are courts of limited, but not inferior, jurisdiction. Their judgments are conclusive between the parties until reversed, although their jurisdiction does not appear upon the record." Busteed v. Parsons, 54 Ala. 393, 401, 25 Am. Rep. 688 (citing McCormick v. Sullivant, 23 U. S. [10 Wheat.] 192, 6 L. Ed. 300; Ex parte Watkins, 28 U. S. [3 Pet.] 193, 7 L. Ed. 650; Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 49 U. S. [8 How.] 586, 12 L. Ed. 1209). When there is mention of the courts of the United States in any statute, we may conclusively assume that only the courts of general jurisdiction intended by the Constitution are meant, unless there is special reason, to be deduced from the context of the statute, for giving to the expression a different meaning. United States v. Mills (D. C.) 11 App. Cas. 500, 507. Courts of District of Columbia. The "courts of the United States," within 13 Stat. 551, providing that in the courts of the United States there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color, nor (in civil actions) because he is a party or interested in the issues tried, includes the courts of the District of Columbia. Noerr v. Brewer (D. C.) 1 MacArthur, 507, 508. Although the superior court of the District of Columbia is a court of the United States, the question whether an act of Congress using the words "court of the United States" applies to such court, as well as higher courts, is one of intention. Norvell, 20 D. C. 348, 353. Military court in Mexico. Ex parte Every court of the United States must derive its jurisdiction and judicial authority from the Constitution or the laws of the United States; and neither the President nor any military officer can establish a court in a conquered country, and authorize it to decide upon the rights of the United States, or of individuals in prize cases, nor to administer the laws of the nations. The courts es tablished or sanctioned in Mexico during the war, by the commanders of the American forces, were nothing more than the agents of the military power. Their decisions were under control of military power, whenever the commanding officer thought proper to interfere. They were not, therefore, courts of the United States, and had no right to adjudicate upon a question of prize or no prize. Jecker v. Montgomery, 54 U. S. (13 How.) 498, 515, 14 L. Ed. 240. Territorial courts. Territorial courts are courts of the United States, within 1 Stat. 91, § 33. United States v. Haskins (U. S.) 26 Fed. Cas. 213, 217. The fact that Congress established the superior courts in the late territory of Florida did not make them United States courts. Beatty v. Ross, 1 Fla. (Branch) 198, 208. The fact that judges of the district and Supreme Courts of the territories are appointed by the President under acts of Congress does not make the courts which they are authorized to hold courts of the United States. Such courts are but the legislative courts of the territory, created in virtue of the clause of the Constitution which authorized Congress to make all rules and regulations respecting the territories belonging to the United States. Accordingly jurors summoned into them under the acts of Congress applicable only to the courts of the United States-i. e., courts established under the article of the Constitution which relates to the judicial power-are wrongfully summoned, and a judgment on their verdict cannot, if properly objected to, be sustained. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 434, 447, 20 L. Ed. 659. Though Act Cong. May 17, 1884, § 3, creates a district court in the district of Alaska, with the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the District Courts of the United States and of the District Courts exercising the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, such court, in common with other territorial courts, is not a court of the United States, within the meaning of Rev. St. § 1768, which excepts judges of the courts of the United States from the authority therein given the President to suspend any civil officer appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. McAllister v. United States, 11 Sup. Ct. 949, 951, 141 U. S. 174, 35 L. Ed. 693. The words "United States courts," as used in St. Okl. 1890, p. 930, § 2, are used in the same sense as such words are used in the Constitution of the United States, and therefore merely refer to such courts as are a part of the federal judiciary of the United States, under article 3 of the federal Constitution, and do not include the United States courts of a territory. Fuller & Fuller Co. v. Johnson, 58 Pac. 745, 746, 8 Okl. 601. |