Harper

The Court bei*>w erred in admitting in evidence the decree in the tax suit without the production of the judgment-roll. If a party attempts to avail himself of a decree as an adjudication upon the subject matter, or as a link in his chain of title founded on a judicial sale under the decree, he must produce the judgment-roll, so that, amongst other things, the Court may determine, on an inspection of the entire roll, whether the Court which, rendered the decree had jurisdiction of the subject matter. It is true the purchaser at a judicial sale may rest, in support of his title, on the judgment, execution, and Sheriff’s deed; but he must produce a valid judgment, and the well-established rule is that the method of proving the judgment to be valid is by the production of the roll, on an inspection of which it may be determined whether^the Court had the neces *235 sary jurisdiction of the subject matter. (Greenleaf’s Ev. sec. 511; 2 Phillips’ Ev. p. 138; Com. Dig. tit. Ev. [A. 4] p. 85; Cowen & Hill’s Notes to Phil. Ev. [Part II] Note 119, p. 278.

The present case furnishes a striking illustration of the necessity of the rule. The Act of May 12th, 1862, (Statutes " 1862, p. 520)…

I concur in the judgment. The Court below erred in overruling the objection to the admission of the tax judgment without the production of the “ roll.” Where the judgment is offered as evidence of more than the res ipsa, and is relied on as evidence of title acquired by sale under it, the whole record —under our practice the judgment roll—must be produced. In my opinion there are other. reasons for this than the one suggested in the opinion of the Court, and questions may be determined by inspection of the judgment roll besides the one relating to the acquisition of jurisdiction of the subject matter. *

The rule is technical, and is based on the solemnity accorded by the law to every portion of the record. The record is to be read as a whole, each portion connected inseparably with the other portions.