¶1refused to consider the answer as sufficiently certified, and refused to dissolve the injunction. The Court cited the cases of Wright v. West, [ante, 300,] and Lloyd v. Lund, (not reported) at Alexandria, March, 1806; Watson & Smith v. Tapscot, Alexandria, March, 1805, (not reported) ; Potts v. Ghequére, Alexandria, March, 1805, (not reported); Wilson v. Stewart, Alexandria, June, 1803, [ante, 128]; Mandeville v. Ringgold, Alexandria, (not reported); and Tibbs & Co. v. Parrott, Washington, June, 1806,"[ante 177, 313.]
1 D.C. 349
Addison v. Duckett
District of Columbia District Court
Decided October 15, 1806
District of Columbia District Court · decided 1806-10-15
Injunction. Motion to dissolve. It was objected that the answer does not appear to be sworn, &c., there being no certificate but that of the justice himself, that he was a justice of the peace for Prince George’s county, in Maryland, at the time he administered the oath. This Court has never gone so far as to admit an answer sworn and certified in this manner. In England, the answer is taken by commission.
Decided 1806-10-15