Jackman v. City of Gloucester

9 N.E. 740, 143 Mass. 380, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 308
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 10, 1887·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Field, J.

The Pub. Sts. e. 191, § 6, provide that the statement of the just and true account which the person claiming a lien must file in the registry of deeds “ shall be subscribed and sworn to by the person claiming the lien, or by some one in his behalf.” The statement filed by the petitioner was subscribed by him, and sworn to before a justice of the peace, and a certificate of the oath was attached to the statement by the justice, who subscribed his name, but did not add the title of his office. We think that this omission did not render the filing of the statement void, and that the fact that the person by whom the oath was administered was authorized to administer it may be proved by evidence. There is nothing in the statute that in terms requires any certificate of the oath, although the statute, construed with reference to well-known usages, undoubtedly implies that the statement shall have a jurat attached. Affidavits and depositions, lawfully taken by a person authorized to take them, are not to be treated as unsworn statements because tbe magistrate has not added to the certificate signed by him the name of his office. Courts permit the certificate to be amended, or, without an amendment, admit evidence of the authority of the person by whom they were taken, if they do not take judicial notice of it. In this case, if the statement appeared on its [382]*382face to have been sworn to, we think that it could be filed; and if, in fact, it was sworn to before a person authorized to administer an oath, we think that there was a compliance with the statute. See Hitchings v. Ellis, 1 Allen, 475; McKinney v. Wilson, 133 Mass. 131; Hunter v. Le Conte, 6 Cowen, 728; People v. Rensselaer Common Pleas, 6 Wend. 543.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Jackman v. City of Gloucester, 9 N.E. 740, 143 Mass. 380, 1887 Mass. LEXIS 308 (Mass. 1887).

9 N.E. 740 (Jackman v. City of Gloucester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

JP Smith Co. Inc. v. Wexler Construction Co. Inc.
233 N.E.2d 723 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1968)
Di Fruscio v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
231 N.E.2d 560 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Carroll Hunnewell, Inc. v. Southboro Construction Corp.
180 N.E.2d 343 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
Valentine Lumber & Supply Co. v. Thibeault
130 N.E.2d 868 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1955)
Cook Borden & Co. v. Commonwealth
199 N.E. 551 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
In re James Passero & Sons, Inc.
139 Misc. 636 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)
Sage v. Stafford
42 A.D. 449 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Turner v. St. John
77 N.W. 340 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)
Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co.
81 F. 439 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia, 1896)
Clement v. Bullens
34 N.E. 173 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)