Graham v. McCoun
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff moved for judgment for want of an answer. It appears that the complaint was duly verified, and an answer thereto was prepared and duly verified in season, and a copy thereof served on the plaintiff’s attorney; but in the copy served the name of the magistrate before whom the affidavit to the answer was sworn to, was omitted by mistake. It was immediately added, and re-served, but not in time.
1Opinion of the Court
Willard, Justice.
The only question in the case is whether the omission in the copy served, of the name of the officer, before whom the answer was verified, renders the service irregular. Under the former practice, the court held in Livingston vs. Cheetham, that the omission of the jurat and signature of the party to a copy of an affidavit on which a motion was made, formed no objection to the service (2 J. R. 479). That case has been followed in similar cases, ever since. But that case -is different from the present. The opposing party could ascertain whether the original papers were sworn…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chase v. Edwards & BullNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barker v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Knowles v. FritzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883