Gamble v. Beattie
New York Supreme Court
The complaint was founded upon a promissory note and verified by the oath of the plaintiff’s attorney to the effect that he believed.it to be true, and it was served on the 24th March, 1849. ■ The answer denies the substance of the complaint and sets up payment ;; and is .verified in the same manner -by the attorney for the defendant. It' was served on the 11th day of April, 1849, the day on which the amended code was passed.
Read the full summary
The complaint was founded upon a promissory note and verified by the oath of the plaintiff’s attorney to the effect that he believed.it to be true, and it was served on the 24th March, 1849. ■ The answer denies the substance of the complaint and sets up payment ;; and is .verified in the same manner -by the attorney for the defendant. It' was served on the 11th day of April, 1849, the day on which the amended code was passed. On the 30th day of April, the plaintiff, disregarding the answer, perfected judgment for the amount claimed by him. The defendant now moves to set aside this judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Barculo, Justice.
It is first necessary to determine whether the code abolished the 92d rule requiring a special verification to a plea in bar to a declaration upon a written instrument or record. That rule refers to declarations and pleas which the code has abolished. The latter had also adopted a new mode of verification ápplicable to all cases of complaints and answers, whether the action be founded upon a written instrument or not. I think, therefore, that the answer was sufficiently verified so far as the old code is concerned.
But is insisted that the amended code being passed on the same…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co.New York Supreme Court · 1867