Academy of Fine Arts v. Power

14 Pa. 442, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 264
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 20, 1850·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Gibson, C. J.

— The act of 1832 enlarges the act of 1817, but does not repeal it. Why should not the affidavit be made as well by a special deputy as by a president, secretary, or treasurer? Such a deputy is within not only the letter, but the reason of the subsequent act, though corporations are not particularly mentioned in it. A corporation is certainly a party, and its deputy is its agent. An affidavit could seldom be made by an officer of a foreign corporation in time to supersede execution; and the proper officer of even a domestic one may be abroad at the important moment. As a preventive of abuse, the affidavit is not of sufficient worth to induce a rigid construction. Every man who has lost a lawsuit believes he has suffered injustice, and is willing to swear it; but his agent or attorney, less influenced by resentment, will swear with more caution. It sufficiently appears, in this instance, [444] that the agent had authority to interfere. To require an express deputation, would be as inconvenient as to require an affidavit by a corporate officer. The practice has been otherwise, and we will not disturb it.

Rule discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Academy of Fine Arts v. Power, 14 Pa. 442, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 264 (Pa. 1850).

14 Pa. 442 (Academy of Fine Arts v. Power) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Katz Underwear Co. v. Erie Railroad
6 Pa. D. & C. 329 (Wayne County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)