Berrien v. Westervelt
This text of 12 Wend. 194 (Berrien v. Westervelt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court,
The coroner had no right to administer the oath to the plaintiff. He is not of the number of those officers-to whom general power is given to admin[195]*195ister oaths or take affidavits, 2 R. S. 284, § 49; and no special authority is given to him to take an affidavit in any cause depending in court. The section referred to in 2 R. S. 552, § 11, does not contemplate a proceeding in an action depending in court; and although the sureties to a replevin bond may be sworn and examined by the coroner, he is not authorized to take an affidavit to be used in a cause. The affidavit not having been sworn to before a proper officer, was a nullity, and the defect is fatal. The statute forbids the executing of the writ, unless the affidavit be made and sworn to before some proper officer. 2 R. S. 523, § 7. The compliance with the statute is in the nature of a condition precedent.
Motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 Wend. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berrien-v-westervelt-nysupct-1834.