Case Name: Leopold Beyer and Joseph Burns, Resp'ts, v. Charles H. Smith and Marcia A. Wilson, App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-12
Citations: 12 N.Y. St. Rep. 415
Docket Number: 
Parties: Leopold Beyer and Joseph Burns, Resp’ts, v. Charles H. Smith and Marcia A. Wilson, App’lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 12
Pages: 415–417

Head Matter:
Leopold Beyer and Joseph Burns, Resp’ts, v. Charles H. Smith and Marcia A. Wilson, App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed December, 1887.)
1 Pleadings—Verification—Code Civ. Pro., § 525.
It is provided by Code Civil Procedure, section 525, that a pleading may be verified by the agent of the party where the party is not within the county where the attorney resides, if the attorney resides within the state. Held, that the Code did not prescribe in what respect the agency must exist, and that the nature of it need not be stated in the verification.
2. Same—Verification.
Held, that a verification would not be set aside because the matter therein stated failed to command confidence.
Appeal from an order made by the St. Lawrence county special term denying a motion to comuel plaintiff’s attorney to receive an answer returned by him because of defective-verification.
The complaint alleges that the defendant Smith, being: insolvent, did by means of fraudulent representations made by him to plaintiff Beyer, procure goods from the plaintiffs’ firm in March, 1887; that in May, 1887, Smith turned over the goods to defendant Wilson, who had full knowledge of the fraud through which they were obtained from the plaintiffs.
Defendant Wilson answers and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief respecting the fraudulent procurement of the goods; denies that the defendant had knowledge of such fraudulent procurement, and denies that she took the goods with such knowledge, and avers that she purchased the goods of the defendant Smith for a good and valuable consideration and in good faith, without any knowledge of any fraudulent procurement of them by Smith.
This answer is verified by one Joseph 0. Wilson, who “being sworn, says that he is the agent of the above named defendant Marcia A. Wilson; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the riiatters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true; that the reason that this affidavit is made by deponent and not by said defendant is, that the said defendant is without the state and is not within the county now; that the sources of deponent’s knowledge and the grounds of his belief as to the allegations of said answer are obtained from papers of said defendant in his custody relating to the matter in issue, and from conversations had with said defendant relating thereto.”
George C. Sawyer, for app’lt; H. D. Ellsworth, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Landon, P. J.
A pleading may be verified "by the agent of the party where the party is not within the county where the attorney resides" if the attorney resides within the state. Code Civil Procedure, § 525.
The Code does not prescribe in what respect the agency must exist, nor that the nature of it be stated in the verification. Here nothing is stated in the answer to be alleged on information and belief, and hence the agent has sworn that every allegation of the answer is true to his own knowledge. Section 525.
The letter and form of the Code have been complied with. It is probable that the agent has. sworn that to be true of his own knowledge which he could not know to be true, but since the Code permits this certificate of the truth of a pleading, we do not feel at liberty to set it aside because it fails to command confidence. The art of con straining parties or their agents to swear to nothing but the truth in verifying pleadings, has not been very successfully exercised in these provisions of the Code.
The order must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements; and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
Potter and Parker, JJ., concur.