Shelton v. Berry

19 Tex. 154
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 19 Tex. 154 (Shelton v. Berry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154 (Tex. 1857).

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

An affidavit is defined by Blackstone to be “ a voluntary oath before some Judge or officer of the Court, “ to evince the truth of certain facts.” (3 Bl. Com. 304.) In practice it means “ an oath or affirmation reduced to writing, “ sworn or affirmed before some officer who has authority to “ administer it.” (Bouv. L. Dic. “ Affidavit Burrill, and Tomlin, same title.) It must be in writing. Such is the requirement of the Statute. (Hartley’s Dig., Art. 1158.) But neither the Statute, nor any general principle of the law, requires that it be signed by the deponent. That does not enter into its definition, nor is it essential. It is sufficient that it be made before an officer áuthorized by the law to administer it. and that he reduce it to writing, and certify officially to the fact of its having been made before him. The affidavit in the present case was, therefore, sufficient. The objection that it was not made by the owner of the claim is not tenable. Where the administrator would reject a claim because it is authenticated by the affidavit of a person who "does not purport to be the owner thereof, or the agent of the owner, and does not state the means of information of the deponent, he must make that the ground of his rejection of the claim. (Dunn v. Sublett, 14 Tex. R. 521; Hansell v. Gregg, 7 Id. 223.) Here he placed his rejection upon a different ground.

We are of opinion that the claim was well authenticated, and that the Court erred in excluding it: for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

State v. Badger
525 P.2d 363 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1974)
Perkins v. Crittenden
462 S.W.2d 565 (Texas Supreme Court, 1970)
Ford v. Aetna Insurance Company
394 S.W.2d 693 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Mitchell v. Jones
361 S.W.2d 224 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Reiser v. Jennings
143 S.W.2d 99 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Ex Parte Winfield Scott
123 S.W.2d 306 (Texas Supreme Court, 1939)
International Harvester Co. of America v. Embody
298 P. 348 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
Rives v. State
296 S.W. 576 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Sorenson v. City Nat. Bank
273 S.W. 638 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Adams v. State
172 S.W. 219 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
First National Bank v. Clifton Armory Co.
128 P. 810 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1912)
Davis v. Sherrill
113 S.W. 556 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)
Anderson v. Cochran, Administratrix
57 S.W. 29 (Texas Supreme Court, 1900)
Lutz v. Kinney
46 P. 257 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1896)
Bantley v. Finney
62 N.W. 213 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1895)
T. W. Barhydt & Co. v. G. N. Alexander & Co.
59 Mo. App. 188 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Boren v. Billington
18 S.W. 101 (Texas Supreme Court, 1891)
Metcalf v. Prescott
10 Mont. 283 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
Williams v. Stevenson
2 N.E. 728 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Alford v. . McCormac
90 N.C. 151 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Tex. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-berry-tex-1857.