Gilmore v. Hempstead
New York Supreme Court
—Motion to set aside the proceedings of plaintiff after judgment, because the complaint was sworn to before the plaintiff’s attorney. The defendant treated it as a nullity.
1Opinion of the Court
Hand, Justice.
In England it has long been considered irregular to take an affidavit before'the attorney in the cause. And even in a proceeding by habeas corpus, the Court of King’s Bench, out of respect to personal liberty, would have disregarded this circumstance, but they said “ the rule was invariable, and was founded on the wisest and most obvious principles,” and adhered to it. (King v. Wallace, 3 T. R. 403.) And in Taylor v. Hatch, (12 J. R. 339,) our Supreme Court said firms “a fit and proper rule, which we shall therefore adopt as the practice here.” The same practice prevailed in our…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. SpaldingNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- M'Laren v. CharrierNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Vary v. GodfreyNew York Supreme Court · 1827
3Cited by8 opinions
- Warner v. WarnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Linck v. City of LitchfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Baumeister v. DemuthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Sand Creek Turnpike Co. v. RobbinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Smith v. PonathMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.