Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 F. Cas. 23

Herman v. Herman

U.S. District Court

Decided October 15, 1825

U.S. District Court · decided 1825-10-15

The defendant resided in France, and the solicitor for the plaintiff consented that his answer might be taken and sworn to before a notai^ public, or other person authorized to administer an oath by the laws of France. The answer was taken by the American consul, and the question now was, whether it was properly taken and sworn to within the terms of the agreement

Decided 1825-10-15

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.

¶11 Den-isart tit “Consuls,” p. 519, has been cited to prove that by the French law, consuls are authorized to administer oaths. But it is quite obvious that the author, in the place referred to, is speaking of the power and duties of French consuls, residing in foreign countries; and not of foreign consuls residing in France.

¶2It was contended, for the defendant, that the act of congress concerning consuls gives them a power to administer oaths. We think that it is not generally given by this act, but that it is confined to particular cases of a maritime or commercial character. But if the power were general, it would not remove the difficulty, the agreement being, that the answer should be taken by some person authorized to administer oaths by the law of France. But for this agreement^ it must have been taken under a dedimus po-testatem.

¶3The answer was not allowed.

/12/fcas/23 · .json · Public domain