Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Abb. Pr. 375

Opdyke v. Marble

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1865

New York Supreme Court · decided 1865-02-15

This was an appeal from an order made at special term, by which a part of the plaintiff’s affidavit presented on the motion made by him was struck out as scandalous. The motion is reported Ante, p. 266.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1937

3 state decisions

1018651870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

By the Court.—Ingraham, J.

¶1entertain much doubt as to the propriety of striking out part of an affidavit at any time. Such does not appear to have been the usual practice even in courts of equity, and, before the Code, was never resorted to in courts of law. The decision of the chancellor in Powell a. Kane (5 Paige, 265), -seems, however, to sanction striking out parts of an affidavit as scandalous. The better practice, however, is to suppress the affidavit, and if it has been filed, to take it from the file.

¶2We also think it was erroneous to entertain the motion before the pleading or affidavit is used. The proper course in regard to an affidavit is, when the same is offered to be read, to object to it- as scandalous, and have it suppressed. A party has a right to keep in his own possession an affidavit, however scandalous it may be, if he does not use it in court or put it on the files, and it is objectionable to allow such motions to be made in advance of the affidavits being used.

¶3We, however, think the judge did not err in-holding that parts of this affidavit were scandalous and impertinent, and that it would have been proper for him on that ground to have suppressed the whole affidavit on the hearing of the motion.

¶4Although it was done in this case before the motion was made, the plaintiff has sustained no injury because he was allowed to use part of the affidavit, when the whole of it should have been rejected.

¶5If a party will insert scandalous matter in an affidavit to be used on a motion, he must submit to have it suppressed, and not read on the motion. The rules in regard to pleading are different. There the residue of the pleading remains, after striking out the scandalous matter, to form the issue.

¶6*377Although the motion should not have been made before the affidavit was used, still the error in that respect has worked no prejudice to the plaintiff’s rights, and we see no reason to reverse the order on that ground.

¶7A part only of the affidavit is suppressed, instead of the whole.

¶8The order is affirmed, but (.without costs.

/18/abbpr/375 · .json · Public domain