Read v. Consequa
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This ease came on upon cross motions to take the bill for confessed for want of an answer, and to dissolve the injunction. The defendant grounded his motion upon an answer sworn to by the defendant at Canton, in April last.
Read the full summary
This ease came on upon cross motions to take the bill for confessed for want of an answer, and to dissolve the injunction. The defendant grounded his motion upon an answer sworn to by the defendant at Canton, in April last. It was objected to as an an swer properly verified by oath, the only evidence of that fact being the certificate of three persons, witnesses to the signature of the defendant, who swore that they saw the defendant sign the-same, and that he swore to the answer according to the laws of China.
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
This is not sufficient. According to the practice of the English courts of chancery, which, by a rule of this court, prior to the rules lately es*354tablished by the supreme court, was to govern in cases not otherwise provided for by special rules, the answer ought to have been taken and sworn to under a dedimus potestatem. Another objection is, that there is no certificate what the oath taken by the defendant was, but it is merely said that he swore to the answer. Under the circumstances of the case, I shall overrule both motions; and order that a dedimus issue to a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Thomson v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Groce v. FieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853