Eldridge v. Steamboat William Campbell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Kansas Court of Common Pleas. I. The statement was verified as required by law, the attorney Robinson being presumed to be a credible person. (R. C. 1855, p. 305, § 4; id. p. 1234, § 20.) The rulings in Bridgford v. Steamboat Elk, 6 Mo. 356, and Hamilton v. Steamboat Ironton, 19 Mo. 523, were unauthorized by the statute. The affidavit is good under the new code.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The affidavit to the complaint in this case was made by the plaintiff’s attorney, and is as follows: “ J. W. Robinson, attorney for plaintiff, makes oath and says he believes the foregoing petition and the matters therein as stated are true. J. W. Robinson, attorney for plaintiff.” It will be observed that the affidavit does not disclose the agent’s means of knowing the facts stated in the complaint; and the only question in the case is whether the affidavit is on that account defective. The point has been expressly ruled by this court in the cases of Bridgford v. Steamboat Elk, 6 Mo. 356,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Steamboat Raritan v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Bridgeford v. Steam Boat ElkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
- Hamilton v. The Steamboat IrontonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- Zeideman v. MolaskyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Gilkeson v. KnightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880