Bliss v. Molter
New York Supreme Court
In this action plaintiff obtained an attachment against the property of the defendants. Defendants having filed an undertaking made a motion to discharge the attachment. Plaintiff opposed the motion on the ground that the undertaking had been executed before defendants’ attorney as notary. In reply, defendants’ attorney claimed that the undertaking -had been executed before he appeared in the action as attorney.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Vorst, J.
The rule excluding from consideration affidavits taken in an action before the attorney therein, as a *113notary or commissioner, is an old one (Taylor agt. Hatch, 12 Johnson, 340 ; Anon., 4 How., 290).
The execution of this undertaking was acknowledged, and the justification of the. sureties was had, before the person whose name is indorsed on the undertaking as attorney for the defendant.. The acknowledgment of the undertaking and the justification of the sureties are essential portions of the instrument (Code of Civil Procedure, secs. 810, 812).
The affidavits were taken in a pending action, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kuh v. BarnettThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1889