Tibballs v. Selfridge
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike out answer of defendant, Delia Selfridge, because not verified. Defendant claims- 1. That verification of the complaint is not regular; and answer need not be verified. 2. That a motion to strike out an answer could not be entertained for such a cause; as the plaintiff’s remedy (if his verification were sufficient) was to disregard the answer, return it, and enter judgment. 8. If the motion be otherwise proper, it is too late; it should have been made the…
Read the full summary
Motion to strike out answer of defendant, Delia Selfridge, because not verified. Defendant claims- 1. That verification of the complaint is not regular; and answer need not be verified. 2. That a motion to strike out an answer could not be entertained for such a cause; as the plaintiff’s remedy (if his verification were sufficient) was to disregard the answer, return it, and enter judgment. 8. If the motion be otherwise proper, it is too late; it should have been made the first term that it could be, December Special Term. The form of the verification of the complaint is— “ A. B. being duly…
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Justice.
In this case there is found full illustration of having a settled rule of action, even in matters of mere form. The 157th section of the Code says, a pleading must be verified, as “ true to the knowledge of the person making it, except,” &c. And decisions are produced as to verifications shunning (as if purposely) the simple, direct words of this section, in a variety of ways; from merely omitting the words, “ to the knowledge,” to evasive and half evasive paraphrases of them. I can see no good reason why the courts should not require a compliance with the section, so full as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Knowles v. FritzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Cherry v. FoleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892