Case ID: sarat-ch-sent_1/html/1074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heman C. Whelpley v. Harperd V. D. Van Epps et al.
    
    
      Jurat—In past tense valid—Effect of stating that facts instead of matters were true. Whelpley, complainant, in person. Cyrus Stevens for defendants.
   Motion to take an answer off the files for ^'irregularity, on account of an alleged imperfection in the jurat. Decided that it is mo objection to the form of a jurat that it is in the past tense,—stating that the defendant swore the facts were true; a jurat not being in the form of an affidavit in the present tense, but is a certificate of the officer stating what the defendant has sworn to; that is, that the facts stated in the answers were true at the time the oath was administered. It was also held that it is no objection to a jurat that it states the defendant swore that the facts stated in the answer, and not the matters therein stated, were true. Motion denied, with $8 costs.