Berrien v. Westervelt

12 Wend. 194
New York Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1834·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

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

Berrien v. Westervelt, 12 Wend. 194 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1834).

12 Wend. 194 (Berrien v. Westervelt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bardwell v. Stubbert
17 Neb. 485 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)
Nichols v. Standish
48 Conn. 321 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1880)
Spalding v. Spalding
3 How. Pr. 297 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Milliken v. Selye
6 Hill & Den. 623 (New York Supreme Court, 1844)
Morris v. Van Voast
19 Wend. 283 (New York Supreme Court, 1838)