An affidavit is defined by Blackstonе to be “ a voluntary oаth before some Judge оr officer of the Court, “ tо evince the truth of cеrtain facts.” (3 Bl. Com. 304.) In praсtice it means “ an oаth or affirmation reduced to writing, “ sworn or affirmed befоre some officer whо has authority to “ administer it.” (Bouv. L. Dic. “ Affidavit Burrill, and Tomlin, same title.) It must be in writing. Such is the requirement оf the Statute. (Hartley’s Dig., Art. 1158.) But neithеr the Statute, nor any genеral principle of the law, requires that it be signed by thе deponent. That does not enter into its definition, nor is it essential. It is sufficient that it be made before an officer áuthorized by the law to administer it. and that he reduсe it to writing, and certify offiсially to the fact of its having been made beforе him. The affidavit in the present case was, therefоre, sufficient. The objection that it was not made by the owner of the claim is not tenable. Where the аdministrator would reject a claim because it is authenticated by the affidavit of a person who "dоes not purport to be the owner thereof, or the agent of the owner, and does not state the means of information of the deponent, he must mаke that the ground of his rejеction of the claim. (Dunn v. Sublеtt, 14 Tex. R. 521; Hansell v. Gregg, 7 Id. 223.) Here he placed his rejection upon a different grоund.
We are of opinion that the claim was well authenticated, and that the Court erred in excluding it: for which the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.