Reilly v. Powell

34 Mo. App. 431, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 102
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 4, 1889·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This action is unlawful detainer. The-affidavit to the complaint is made by plaintiffs agent, who “ on his oath says that the foregoing complaint is true in substance”’ Objection is made that the affidavit-is insufficient by reason of being qualified by the words- “ in substance.” We think the objection is well taken. There is no necessity for experiments in matters of this [433] nature, especially when they are jurisdictional. The affiant swears that the matters, which he conceives to be of substance in the complaint, are true.

Those matters which he may think are not of substance are not sworn to. This would leave the matter a question of opinion.

As the affidavit is jurisdictional, we will reverse the judgment and dismiss the case. Fletcher v. Keyte, 66 Mo. 285.

Smith, P. J., concurs; Gill, J., not sitting.

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

Reilly v. Powell, 34 Mo. App. 431, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 1889).

34 Mo. App. 431 (Reilly v. Powell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ver Steeg v. Becker-Moore Paint Co.
80 S.W. 346 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Snyder v. Parker
75 Mo. App. 529 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Wiltshire v. Triplett
71 Mo. App. 332 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1897)
Tegler v. Mitchell
46 Mo. App. 349 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)