Whelpley v. Van Epps
This text of 1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 75 (Whelpley v. Van Epps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Saratoga Chancery Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Motion to take an answer off the files for ^'irregularity, on account of an alleged imperfection in the jurat. Decided that it is mo objection to the form of a jurat that it is in the past tense,—stating that the defendant swore the facts were true; a jurat not being in the form of an affidavit in the present tense, but is a certificate of the officer stating what the defendant has sworn to; that is, that the facts stated in the answers were true at the time the oath was administered. It was also held that it is no objection to a jurat that it states the defendant swore that the facts stated in the answer, and not the matters therein stated, were true. Motion denied, with $8 costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Sarat. Ch. Sent. 75, 1841 N.Y. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whelpley-v-van-epps-nychanctsara-1841.