Soutter v. Mather
This text of 14 Abb. Pr. 440 (Soutter v. Mather) 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.
Opinion
In Stannard a. Mattice (7 How. Pr., 4), Tread-well a. Eassett (10 Ib., 184), Meads a. Gleason (13 Ib., 309), Boston Locomotive Works a. Wright (15 Ib., 253), it is laid down, that in all cases of verification by an attorney, he must state his knowledge or grounds of belief.
The cases of Meade a. Gleason and Treadwell a. Eassett, in which the court held the verifications defective, were actions on promissory notes, the verifications were by attorney in substantially the same form as the verification to the complaint in this action.
As these decisions were rendered at special terms in other districts, I should not feel bound to follow them if I' thought them erroneous; but I think the construction given by these decisions to the section of the Code under consideration coi’rect.
Motion granted, with $10 costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Abb. Pr. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soutter-v-mather-nysupct-1862.