Barnard v. Darling

Decided October 7, 1845

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1845-10-07

This was a creditor’s suit. The bill was in the usual form of a creditor’s bill, and purported to have been sworn to by the complainants in the usual manner, except that the statement in the jurat was in this form: “ State of New-York,-county, ss.” And the oath was signed “O. 0., comm’r of deeds,” without specifying the county or city for which the person signing it was a commissioner. It appeared, however, that he was in fact a commissioner of deeds for the city of Albany.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-10-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1893

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Chancellor

¶1decided that objections to the regularity of the complainant’s proceedings in obtaining their judgment at law, or in issuing and returning the execution, or in executing the same, could not be considered by this court; but that the defendant must apply to the court of law for relief. He also held that there was no validity in the objection to the form of the jurat; as the complainants could be convicted of perjury upon such a jurat, if they had sworn falsely; and that as the officer before whom the bill was sworn to was only authorized to administer the oath within the city of Albany, the legal presumption was that he had not violated his duty by doing it elsewhere.

¶2Motion denied with costs