Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 How. Pr. 394

Lane & Laing v. Morse & Studley

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1852

New York Supreme Court · decided 1852-02-15

The affidavit verifying the plaintiffs’ complaint, purported to have been made before F. L. Durand, commissioner of deeds. There was no venue to the affidavit, and nothing upon its face to show where it was taken, nor of what place or county Durand was a commissioner. The defendants’ attorneys served their answer without its being verified which the plaintiffs’ attorney refused to receive, and proceeded to enter up judgment as though no answer had been served.

Relies on Belden v. Devoe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1852-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1909

7 state decisions

30185218601870188018901900decided

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 →

Johnson, Justice.

¶1The venue is an essential part of every affidavit. It is prima facie evidence of the place where it was taken (Belden vs. Devoe, 12 Wend. 225, note; 3 Hill, 461). An affidavit should show upon its face that it was made before some officer competent to take affidavits, and within some place where he was authorized by law to administer an oath. This, at least, would seem to be necessary to show a legal verification. .

¶2For aught that appears, this affidavit was made in Canada, or in some other state, where the oath administered .was extra judicial and void. No presumption arises that an affidavit has been made at any particular place within the state; nor, indeed, that it was made within the limits of the state, where no place is mentioned. The affidavit did not, therefore, contain enough to show that the plaintiff in verifying his complaint, had been legally sworn, and consequently the defendants were at liberty to put in their answer without a verification. It is not a case where the defendants were bound to return the complaint, if they regarded the verification as defective, as supposed by the plaintiffs’ counsel.

¶3The judgment and execution must, therefore be set aside, with costs of the motion.

/6/howpr/394 · .json · Public domain