Case ID: ad_20/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Herrick, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jed H. Griffin, Appellant, v. William Barton, Respondent.
    
      Jurisdiction—failure to insert the date in a -verification—presumption that a petition in a summa/ry proceeding was verified before the precept was issued.
    
    Where the petition and precept, in a landlord and tenant proceeding, are each dated the same day, and the day of the month is not filled in in the jurat attached to the petition, which is, however, verified before the justice of the peace who issues the precept, and his return upon appeal recites “a petition, duly verified, having been presented- to the undersigned justice of the peace, on behalf of and by ” the landlord, the appellate court will assume that the date of the verification, of the petition was the day upon which it was used and upon which the precept was issued thereon, and the justice will not be required to make a further return specifying whether or not the petition was verified prior to the issuing of the precept.
    
      Appeal by the plaintiff, Jed H. Griffin, from an order of the Franklin County Court, made at a term of the County Court of Franklin county, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Franklin on the 6th day of July, 1897, denying the plaintiff’s motion for an order that the justice before whom the case was tried make and file an amended return herein, in which he specify whether or not the petition was verified prior to the issuing of the precept.
    
      Gordon H. Main, for the appellant.
    
      John P. Kellas, for the respondent.
   Herrick, J.:

The return of the justice already made sets forth that “ a petition, duly verified, having been presented to the undersigned justice of the peace, on behalf of and by Jed H. Griffin, landlord,” etc.

That is a statement that the petition was properly verified when it was presented to and used before him as a basis for the issuing of a precept.

The petition itself is printed in the record before us, and from it it appears that it was sworn to before the justice who issued the precept in the action and who made the return to the County Court. His name is attached to it as the officer before whom the petitioner was sworn; the proper jurat is attached, except that the day of the month when it was verified is left blank; this does not, under the circumstances, render the verification defective; it is a mere formal error of a kind which will, as a rule, be disregarded. (Baboock v. Kuntzsch, 85 Hun, 33.)

The petition is dated March 27, 1897, and the precept issued in pursuance of it is also dated March 27, 1897, and the verification having been made before the justice who issued the process, and he having certified in his return that before he issued the process a duly verified petition was presented to him, the court may fairly assume upon appeal that the date of its verification was the day upon which it was used and caused the issuing of the process, to wit, the 27th day of March, 1897, and, therefore, a further return is unnecessary, and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.