Vary v. Godfrey
6 Cow. 587
Opinion
This affidavit does not come within the rule laid down in Taylor v. Hatch, (12 John. Rep. 340.) That applies only to affidavits made before an attorney in a suit pending; not to those preparatory to the commencement of one. The affidavit is not entitled; and the attorney may or may not be retained at the time when the affidavit is made. The rule is thus qualified by the English cases. (Haward v. Nalder, Barnes, 60.) The motion must be denied.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Vary v. Godfrey, 6 Cow. 587 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1827).
6 Cow. 587 (Vary v. Godfrey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Kindt
98 F. 403 (S.D. Iowa, 1900)
Smith v. Ponath
17 Mo. App. 262 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Bliss v. Molter
8 Abb. N. Cas. 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
In re Mauer
16 F. Cas. 1162 (D. Nevada, 1878)
Gilmore v. Hempstead
4 How. Pr. 153 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)