Taylor v. Hatch
New York Supreme Court
SKINNER was about to read an affidavit, in support of a motion in this cause, when Walworth objected, that the affi- - davit had been taken before the attorney for the plaintiff, who was a commissioner for taking affidavits, to be read in this court. He cited the rule of the court of K. B., in England, and -3 Term Rep. 403. King v. Wallace. .
1Per curiam
The practice of the court of K. B. is, not to allow an affidavit taken before the attorney in the cause to' be read. It is a very fit and proper rule, which we shall, therefore, adopt as the practice here. As the party may, however, have been led into a mistake as to the practice, we give him leave to withdraw his motion, and to renew it again, at, the next term, on a proper affidavit. (a)
Tidd's K. B. Pr. 451. But an affidavit to hold to bail may be taken before a commissioner, though attorney for the plaintiff. Tidd’s Pr. 155.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Warner v. WarnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Linck v. City of LitchfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Vary v. GodfreyNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Collins v. StewartNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
- Vreeland v. Pennsylvania Tanning Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.