Soutter v. Mather
New York Supreme Court
Motion to vacate a judgment. This action was brought by James T. Soutter against John 0. Mather, as maker, and Bichard Schell, as indorser, of a promissory note for eleven hundred dollars.
Read the full summary
Motion to vacate a judgment. This action was brought by James T. Soutter against John 0. Mather, as maker, and Bichard Schell, as indorser, of a promissory note for eleven hundred dollars. The verification of the complaint was as follows: [Venue.] Jesse W. Benedict, being duly sworn, says, that he is one of the firm of Benedict & Boardman, the attorneys for the plaintiff in this action, that the foregoing complaint is true to his own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true. Deponent further says, that…
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, J.
In Stannard a. Mattice (7 How. Pr., 4), Tread-well a. Eassett (10 Ib., 184), Meads a. Gleason (13 Ib., 309), Boston Locomotive Works a. Wright (15 Ib., 253), it is laid down, that in all cases of verification by an attorney, he must state his knowledge or grounds of belief.
The cases of Meade a. Gleason and Treadwell a. Eassett, in which the court held the verifications defective, were actions on promissory notes, the verifications were by attorney in substantially the same form as the verification to the complaint in this action.
As these decisions were rendered at special terms in other…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stannard v. MatticeNew York Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Silcox v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889