Soutter v. Mather

Nov 15, 1862
Reporters:
Before:
Barnard
Barnard, J.

In Stannard a. Mattice (7 How. Pr., 4), Tread-well a. Eassett (10 Ib., 184), Meads a. Gleason (13 Ib., 309), Boston Locomotive Works a. Wright ‍‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍(15 Ib., 253), it is laid down, that in all cases of verification by an attorney, he must state his knowledge or grounds of belief.

The ‍‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍cases of Meade a. Gleason and Treadwell a. Eassett, in which the court held the verifications defective, were actions on promissory notes, the verifications were by attorney in ‍‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍substantially the same form as the verification to the complaint in this action.

As these decisions were rendered at special terms in other districts, ‍‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍I should not feel bound to follow them if I’ thought them erroneous; but I think the construction given by these decisions to ‍‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‍the section of the Code under consideration coi’rect.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.