Railway Co. v. Deane

31 S.W. 42, 60 Ark. 524, 1895 Ark. LEXIS 191
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 11, 1895·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Battle, J.

While it is proper to prefix a venue to an affidavit, and desirable that it should be done, the failure to do so is not fatal to the affidavit. “ The important thing is that it shall appear that the oath was administered by a person authorized to administer such oaths.” When that appears, the presumption, in the absence of a venue, is that the officer before whom the affidavit was made acted within his jurisdiction, when it was sworn to and signed before him. Reavis v. Cowell, 56 Cal. 588; Parker v. Baker, 8 Paige, Ch. 428; Barnard v. Darling, 1 Barb; Ch. 218; State v. Henning, 54 N. W. 536; Proffat on Notaries, sec. 52, and cases cited.

An affidavit in which the venue is not stated is defective, but can be amended. The court may require it to be done, according to the facts, in the most practical manner, and tax the party filing it with the cost of the amendment. But, under the statutes of this State, it cannot legally dismiss an appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court, on account of defects in affidavits. Sand. & H. Dig. sec. 4433.

The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the appeal is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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

Railway Co. v. Deane, 31 S.W. 42, 60 Ark. 524, 1895 Ark. LEXIS 191 (Ark. 1895).

31 S.W. 42 (Railway Co. v. Deane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rasmussen v. C. J. Horner Co.
505 S.W.2d 225 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1974)
Vincent v. Wesson
166 S.W.2d 1023 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1942)
Ashby v. Shoptaw
93 S.W.2d 136 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1936)
Georgia State Savings Assoc. v. Marrs
9 S.W.2d 785 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster
203 P. 231 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Tucker v. Tucker
21 Colo. App. 94 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1912)