Lane & Laing v. Morse & Studley

6 How. Pr. 394
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 6 How. Pr. 394 (Lane & Laing v. Morse & Studley) 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.

Bluebook
Lane & Laing v. Morse & Studley, 6 How. Pr. 394 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1852).

Opinion

Johnson, Justice.

The venue is an essential part of every affidavit. It is prima facie evidence of the place where it was taken (Belden vs. Devoe, 12 Wend. 225, note; 3 Hill, 461). An affidavit should show upon its face that it was made before some officer competent to take affidavits, and within some place where he was authorized by law to administer an oath. This, at least, would seem to be necessary to show a legal verification. .

For aught that appears, this affidavit was made in Canada, or in some other state, where the oath administered .was extra judicial and void. No presumption arises that an affidavit has been made at any particular place within the state; nor, indeed, that it was made within the limits of the state, where no place is mentioned. The affidavit did not, therefore, contain enough to show that the plaintiff in verifying his complaint, had been legally sworn, and consequently the defendants were at liberty to put in their answer without a verification. It is not a case where the defendants were bound to return the complaint, if they regarded the verification as defective, as supposed by the plaintiffs’ counsel.

The judgment and execution must, therefore be set aside, with costs of the motion.

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

Related

Rivero v. Hernández
17 P.R. 868 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1911)
Robinson v. Cooper
62 Misc. 517 (New York Supreme Court, 1909)
Leavitt v. Thornton
123 A.D. 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
American Book Co. v. Watson
24 Misc. 524 (New York County Courts, 1898)
Rogers v. . Pell
49 N.E. 75 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
T. W. Barhydt & Co. v. G. N. Alexander & Co.
59 Mo. App. 188 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Saril v. Payne
4 N.Y.S. 897 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1889)
People ex rel. Mosher v. Stowell
9 Abb. N. Cas. 456 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Vincent v. People
15 Abb. Pr. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Cook v. Staats
18 Barb. 407 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 How. Pr. 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-laing-v-morse-studley-nysupct-1852.