354 GIBSON v. TILTON.

foreign nations to take testimony where the commissioners must be
sworn, by some magistrate of the place, before they can proceed to
act. So an affidavit verifying the truth of an answer, made before
a magistrate duly authorized to administer an oath in the country
where the respondent resides, has long been admitted as sufficient.
The acts of foreign magistrates, in all such cases, are however
considered as having been done under the authority of this court;
and as deriving their sanction from the judicial power of this State,
not from that of the foreign State. For, standing unconnected in
the foreign State with 'that to which they relate here, they would
be there wholly unintelligible and inoperative. This interchange
of courtesies, in aid of judicial proceedings, seems to be as com-
mon among the nations of Europe, as it is with the several States
of our Union, (e) And in all such cases it would seem, that the
comity of nations is carried so far, that the public functionaries
will not only suffer the commission to be executed by the commis-
sioners to whom it is sent, but if necessary, will compel a witness
to appear and testify, so that his deposition may be taken, and
returned to the tribunal of the foreign nation whence the commis-
sion emanated, (f)

The tribunals of this State have often found it necessary to ask
the assistance of the judicial power of the other States of our
Union or of foreign countries to procure testimony or obtain the
means of administering justice. And in doing so those courts
alone who ask or accept such assistance can have the authority to
regulate its nature, form and extent. And they have accordingly
laid it down as a general rule, that such acts, although varying in
form in each case according to circumstances, must yet contain all
the requisites essential to such acts when done here.(g) But the
court, in such cases, is not called on to give any faith, or credit,
or to pass any opinion upon the effect of a judicial proceeding of
another State. If it were, then that matter having been regulated
by the Constitution and laws of the United States, it certainly
would be bound to submit to those regulations so far as they
applied. But the question, how far this court will ask for, or
accept of affidavits taken in another State, as the medium of that

(e) Dalmer v. Barnard, 7 T. R. 251; Ex parte Worsley, 2 H. Blac. 275; Omealy
v. Newell, 8 East, 364; Horaby v. Pemberton, Mosely, 58; (Jason v: Wordsworth,
i Ves, 325, S86; Garvey v. Hibbert, 1 Jac. & Walk. 180; Braham v. Bowes, 1 Jac.
& Walk. 296.—(f) Young v. Cassa, 3 Eccle. Rep. 417; Mitchell v. Smith, 1 Paige,
287; Mitf. Plea. 186, notes.—(g) Tidd, Pra. 156.