Case Name: Lessem, Bro. & Co. v. Wilson
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1876-06-13
Citations: 43 Iowa 488
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lessem, Bro. & Co. v. Wilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 488–490

Head Matter:
Lessem, Bro. & Co. v. Wilson.
1. Practice: verification: parties. In an action commenced by a partnership in the name of “S. J. L., Bro. & Co.” the petition was verified by the affidavit of I. L., the affidavit failing to disclose that the maker was a member of plaintiffs’ firm, although an account annexed to the petition was sworn to by the said I. L. as a member of the firm: Held, that in the absence of proof to the contrary the petition will be presumed to have been properly verified.
Appeal from Lima District Qowri.
Tuesday, June 13.
The plaintiffs claim of the defendant the sum of $476.00, with interest, on an account, a copy of which is attached to the petition. Annexed to said account is an affidavit of Isaac Lessem, made in Adams county, Illinois, and duly sworn to before Wm. Marsh, a notary public, on the 30th day of March, 1875, as follows: “Isaac Lessem, being duly sworn, says, that he is a member of the late firm of S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co., a partnership consisting of Solomon J. Lessem, Isaac Lessem, Gustav L. and Max A. Lessem; that said G. W. Wilson is justly indebted to said firm of S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co., in the sum of four hundred and seventy-six dollars, over and above all payments, set-offs and deductions upon the account for goods and merchandise sold and delivered by said firm to said Wilson; that the foregoing is a correct copy of said account, and further says not.” The petition is verified by the affidavit of Isaac Lessem, without a statement that he is one of plaintiffs, or of any fact rendering a person not a party competent to make the affidavit, as provided in section 2673 of the Code.
The defendant moved to strike from the petition the verification thereof, and also filed an answer, which was a general denial without verification. The plaintiffs moved to strike the answer of defendant from the files, for the reason that it was not verified. The court overruled defendant’s motion and sustained plaintiffs’. On the next day, to-wit: October 21st, the defendant was adjudged to be in default for want of an answer. On the 5th day of November, judgment was rendered for plaintiffs for $472.26. The defendant appeals.
J. B. Young, for appellant.
/. M. Preston c& Son, for appellees.

Opinion:
Day, J.
The only point made is that the affidavit of verification does not show that Isaac Lessem is a member of the firm of of S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co., or that he is one of the plaintiffs in the action. It is to be observed, however, that the account with the affidavit attached thereto is referred to in the petition and made a part of it, so that the petition shows that Isaac Lessem is a member of the firm of S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co. It is said, however, that the Isaac Lessem who makes affidavit to the account, may be another person than the Isaac Lessem who verifies the petition. This is true. And appellant might, with the same propriety, have insisted that the firm of S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co., referred to in the account, is a different firm from S. J. Lessem, Bro. & Co., the plaintiffs, for that they may be different is equally true. But in the absence of proof to the contrary, the law presumes the firm to be the same, and makes the same presumption respecting the individual. If John Jones sues as plaintiff, and the petition is verified by John. Jones, it would be sacrificing substance to shadow to hold the verification bad because it failed to state that John Jones was plaintiff. That case is this.
Affirmed.