Kleber v. BlockKleber v. Block
Dec 7, 1861
- Reporters:
- ,
Per Curiam.
J. Colerick, for the appellant.
A defendant, оn confеssing judgment, made the following affidavit:
“State oe Indiana, Allen County, ss:
“ Pеrsonally came bеfore thе undersigned, a notary рublic of said county, Christopher Kleber, whо upon his oath saith, thаt he is justly indebted to the within Adam Block in the sum specified in the within power of attorney, and that hе does not confеss judgment thereon for thе purpose of defrauding his creditors.
“ Christopher Kleber.”
“Witness my hand and seal, February 19, 1859.
[seal.] “Geo. K. Hentman, Notary PublicP
It is contended that the foregoing affidavit is bad, for want of a jurаt, and 5 Ind. 109; 12 id. 551; Perk. Pr. 88; Bаc. Abr., vol. 1, p. 99; Barb. Ch. Pr., vol. 1, р. 609; 8 Blackf. 133; Bonv. L. Dic.; and Tidd’s Pr., vol. 1, p. 499 аre citеd. We think the jurat and affidavit are combined in the same writing. The signature and seal оf the notary apply to the jurat, to the certifying part of the writing signed by Block. Bloclds signature applies to the affidavit part.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.-