Sargent v. Townsend

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Sargent v. Townsend

2 Disney (Ohio) 472

CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati

DecidedApril 15, 1859

DocketNo. 10,448

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Disney (Ohio) 472 (Sargent v. Townsend) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sargent v. Townsend, 2 Disney (Ohio) 472 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

Gholson, J.

A motion has been made in this case to [473]*473dismiss the action, because the petition has not been properly-verified. The code provides that the officer before whom the affidavit is taken, shall “ certify that it was sworn to or affirmed before him, and signed in his presence.” Section III. In this case the certificate is “ subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of February, A. D. 1859.”

There can be no objection to the term “ subscribed,” it is found in section 105. “Every pleading in a court of record must be subscribed by the party or his attorney.” Is subscribed before me, then, equivalent to subscribed in my presence. I think it would be exceedingly technical to hold that it was not. While, therefore, it may, as a general rule, be better for notaries and other officers taking affidavits, to follow the language of the code, T can not think that either its words or the purposes of justice require such an objection as this to be sustained.

Motion overruled.'"

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

Gholson, J.

A motion has been made in this case to [473]*473dismiss the action, because the petition has not been properly-verified. The code provides that the officer before whom the affidavit is taken, shall “ certify that it was sworn to or affirmed before him, and signed in his presence.” Section III. In this case the certificate is “ subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of February, A. D. 1859.”

There can be no objection to the term “ subscribed,” it is found in section 105. “Every pleading in a court of record must be subscribed by the party or his attorney.” Is subscribed before me, then, equivalent to subscribed in my presence. I think it would be exceedingly technical to hold that it was not. While, therefore, it may, as a general rule, be better for notaries and other officers taking affidavits, to follow the language of the code, T can not think that either its words or the purposes of justice require such an objection as this to be sustained.

Motion overruled.'"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Disney (Ohio) 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sargent-v-townsend-ohsuperctcinci-1859.