Case Name: L. H. Sargent v. E. B. Townsend
Court: Cincinnati Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1859-04
Citations: 2 Disney (Ohio) 472
Docket Number: No. 10,448
Parties: L. H. Sargent v. E. B. Townsend.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Superior Court of Cincinnati at special and general terms (Disney)
Volume: 2
Pages: 472–473

Head Matter:
L. H. Sargent v. E. B. Townsend.
(No. 10,448.)
A certificate “subscribed and sworn to before me” is sufficient in form for a jurat.
Special Term. — On motion to dismiss the action by reason of an alleged defect in the jurat;
Lincoln, Smith & Warnock, for plaintiff
W. L. Spooner, for defendant.

Opinion:
Gholson, J.
A motion has been made in this case to dismiss the action, because the petition has not been properly-verified. The code provides that the officer before whom the affidavit is taken, shall " certify that it was sworn to or affirmed before him, and signed in his presence." Section III. In this case the certificate is " subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of February, A. D. 1859."
There can be no objection to the term " subscribed," it is found in section 105. "Every pleading in a court of record must be subscribed by the party or his attorney." Is subscribed before me, then, equivalent to subscribed in my presence. I think it would be exceedingly technical to hold that it was not. While, therefore, it may, as a general rule, be better for notaries and other officers taking affidavits, to follow the language of the code, T can not think that either its words or the purposes of justice require such an objection as this to be sustained.
Motion overruled.'"