Whelpley v. Van Epps
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to take the answer of the defendant Yan Epps off the files, for irregularity, on account of an alleged imperfection in the jurat.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Two objections are made to the • form of the jurat in this case : 1st. That the defendant swears that the facts were true, in the past tense; and 2d, That he merely swore that the facts stated, in the answer, and not the matters therein stated were true. The jurat is in the usual and proper form, so far as relates to the matter of the first objection. It is not in the form of an affidavit in the present tense ; but is a certificate of the officer, stating what the defendant had sworn to. And it is properly in the past tense, certifying that the defendant appeared before him at…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hovnanian v. BedessernAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- State v. GrinsteadCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1900
- Schoolcraft v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1853