Chase v. Edwards & Bull
2 Wend. 283
Opinion
The jurat may be an essential part of the papers served, as without it, facts stated may be unintelligible. The books of practice say that the officer’s name, but not the date, may be omitted. When essential, the jurat must be given. The other objection, however, is fatal: the attorney, and not the clerk in the attorney’s office, should make the affidavit, unless a sufficient excuse is offered for the omission. The motion is denied, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Chase v. Edwards & Bull, 2 Wend. 283 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).
2 Wend. 283 (Chase v. Edwards & Bull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Eyre v. Stubbert
71 Misc. 147 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Veal v. Perkerson
47 Ga. 92 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1872)
Graham v. McCoun
5 How. Pr. 353 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Nelson v. Bell
17 F. Cas. 1314 (S.D. New York, 1851)
The Harriet
11 F. Cas. 586 (S.D. New York, 1845)
Bird v. Moore
3 Hill & Den. 447 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)
Union Furnace Co. v. Shepherd
2 Hill & Den. 413 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)