Dunlap v. Clay
65 Miss. 454
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court. .
It was not necessary that the agent of plaintiff should “ hold up his hand and swear,” to make his act an oath to the truth of the matters set out for grounds of attachment.
The affiant and the officer both understood that what was done was all that was necessary to complete the oath, and what was done was sufficiently formal.
Wharton on Criminal Law, Sec. 2205.
The judgment is reversed, the motion to quash overruled and cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dunlap v. Clay, 65 Miss. 454 (Mich. 1888).
65 Miss. 454 (Dunlap v. Clay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Allen
27 So. 2d 695 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1946)
Farrow v. State
1941 OK CR 48 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1941)
Rousseau v. Democratic Parish Executive Committee
164 So. 175 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1935)
State v. Tull
62 S.W.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Atwood v. State
111 So. 865 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Britt v. Davis
60 S.E. 180 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Pyke v. City of Jamestown
107 N.W. 359 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Markey v. State
47 Fla. 38 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Bonner v. White
78 Miss. 653 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1900)
Ex parte Finn
52 P. 756 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)