Case Name: The Third National Bank of Sedalia, Missouri, Respondent, v. Monroe H. Garton et al., Appellants
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1890-02-17
Citations: 40 Mo. App. 113
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Third National Bank of Sedalia, Missouri, Respondent, v. Monroe H. Garton et al., Appellants.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 113–128

Head Matter:
The Third National Bank of Sedalia, Missouri, Respondent, v. Monroe H. Garton et al., Appellants.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
February 17, 1890.
Rehearing denied, March $1, 1890.
Í. Attachmentt affidavit for: amendment: jurisdiction. An affidavit for attachment, filed in the cause, though in proper form otherwise, which is not signed by the alleged affiant, and the jurat is neither signed by the clerk nor attested by the seal of the court, is a nullity, and cannot be amended, and confers no jurisdiction to issue a writ of attachment.
On motion for rehearing.
3.--:--:-: appearance, On motion for rehearing the majority of the court adhere to the original opinion and hold in addition that the fact of defendant's appearing and pleading to a subsequently filed affidavit does not waive the necessity of a proper affidavit in the inception of the attachment proceeding, which is a proceeding in rem, and the means provided by the statute must be pursued to bring into the jurisdiction of the court the res, the property of the defendant.
Per Smith, P. J., dissenting:
3. -: -:--:---. The failure of the affiant to sign the affidavit, and the want of a jurat thereto, were not such an insufficiency as prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction, and there was no error in permitting the affidavit to be amended as provided by the statute ; and the defendants’ plea in abatement waived the defects in the affidavit.
Appeal from the Johnson Circuit Court.- — Hon. Chas. W. Sloan, Judge.
Reversed and remanded
Bam? I P.‘ Bparlcs and G. B. LIoss, for appellants.
(1) The paper styled an affidavit for an attachment was a nullity because (1) it lácked the signature of the affiant, and (2) the jurat was unsigned. Ha/rgadine v. VanHorn, 72 Mo. 370; Burnett v. McCluey, 78 Mo. 677, loc. cit. 689 ; Bray v. McCluey, 55 Mo. 128 ; Owens v. Johns, 59 Mo. 89. The motion to quash the writ of attachment was the proper procedure to raise the question. Owens v.- Johns, supra. (2) The filing of an affidavit in compliance with the statutes was a sine qua non to the issuance of a valid writ of attachment, and the later to the jurisdiction in the court. R. S. 1879, sec. 402, p. 63; Drake on Attachment [5 Ed.] sec. 84; Hardin v. Lee, 51 Mo. 241, and authorities there cited; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 303; Owens v. Johns, supra. (3) That which is void is not amendable and e converso. Owens v. Johns, supra; Hardin v. Lee, supra, and authorities there cited; Hargadine v. VanHorn, supra, (a) It follows that the court erred in giving its sanction to the extra-judicial amendment by overruling the motion to quash the writ and the amended affidavit. Amendments cannot be made so as to supply jurisdictional facts when the record shows an absence of them. Blize v. Castilio, 8 Mo. App. 290. (b ) The court erred in admitting affidavits and depositions — evidence de hors the record, in support of the leave to amend. Blize v. Castilio, 8 Mo. App., loe. eit. 294; Jones v. Hart, 60 Mo. 346; Hansbrough v. Fudge, 80 Mo. 307. (c) The taking of the .affidavit to Sedalia, and causing Parker and the clerk to sign the same before the notary taking their depositions, was extra-judicial and void, being in advance of any authorization by the court. (d) It was essential that the affidavit should have been entitled in the cause, it must be complete in itself. Bray v. McCluey, 56 Mo., loe. cit. 138; dissenting opinion of Wagner, J.; Arnold ». Nye, 11 Mich. 457 ; 28 Cen. Law Jour. 261, 262. (e) The paper styled an affidavit upon which the writ was based contained none of the essentials of an affidavit. See leading articles entitled “ Essentials of an affidavit,” 28 Cen. Law Jour. 261, 262. (/) The affidavit, writ and return constitute a piart of the judgment roll, and the motion in arrest reached the errors on their face.
Wm. 8. Shirk with Jackson & Montgomery, for the respondent.
(1) The original affidavit, though not signed by the affiant, and having no jurat thereto, having actuually been sworn to, was not a nullity. It was amendable. The omissions were not jurisdictional. R. S. 1889, sec. 568, being the same as statutes of 1879, sec. 445; Henderson v. Drace, 30 M'o. 362; Mus grove v. Mott, 90 Mo. 107 on 110; Burnett v. McCluey, 92 Mo. 230; Waples on Attachment, p. 83, and authorities cited on note 4, and page 104. (2) The depositions of Parker and Brady and the affidavit of Shirk show, beyond dispute, that Parker did swear that the causes for attachment, set out in the affidavit, existed, and the court, by over ruling the motion to quash, ratified the' act of the said Parker in signing the affidavit, and of the clerk in signing the jurat, at the time of the taking of their depositions, and it was not error for them to do so. ( 3) There was no error in admitting the depositions and affidavit above mentioned, in support of respondent’s application for leave to amend. The cases cited by. appellant, viz. : Blize v. Castilio, 8 Mo. App. 294; Jones v. Hart, 60 Mo. 351, and Hansbrough v. Fudge, 80 Mo. 307, are not all in point. The omissions in the original affidavit were merely clerical omissions or mistakes, and not at all of the same nature as the amendments attempted in the above cases. (4) The affidavit was not only attached to the petition, but was written on the same sheet of paper with it, and, as to being entitled in the cause, it must be read in connection with the petition, and is in that respect sufficient. Burnett v. McCluey, 92 Mo., loo. cit. 235. (5) As soon after respondent discovered the omissions in the original affidavit, as it was possible for it to do so, it filed an an amended affidavit (see affidavit of Shaw, filed, June 13, 1887), and it might well have rested on this affidavit, without amending the original. It was not necessary to wait until the original affidavit was held insufficient, but had the right to amend in advance. Musgrove v. Mott, 90 Mo., loe. cit. 110. (6) Our statute does not in terms require the affidavit to be signed by the party who makes it. Hence, if it was actually sworn to, it is not a nullity. 1 Am. and Eng. Oy. Law, p. 311, title “Affidavits — signature,” and authorities cited in note 3, among which are': Haff v.. Spicer, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 190 ; Melius v. Shafer, 3 Denio, 60; Hitsman v. Garrard, 16 N. J. Law (1 Harr.) 124; Bates v. Robinson, 8 Iowa, 318, and many others: Waples on Attach., p. 83, and cases cited in note 4. (7) And the failure of the clerk to attach his jurat was not fatal to the affidavit, if he actually swore the party to it. Kruse v. Wilson, 79 111. 233; Cook o. Jenkins, 30 Iowa, 452; Simon v. Stetter, 25 Kansas, 155; Waples on Attach., p. 84, note 1. And upon clear proof that the affidavit was sworn to by the affiant, before a proper officer, the courts will permit it to be amended according to the fact. See above cases, and cases cited to point 2, siopra; Waples on Attach., p. 84, note 2; p. 103, 104, 105, note 1 ; p. 106. (8) Defendants waived all objections to the sufficiency of the affidavit by filing a plea in abatement to it, and going to trial thereon. Brayton v. Freeze, 1 Indiana, 121; Henderson v. Brace, 30 Mo. 362, on 363-4.

Opinion:
Gill, J.
This is a suit by attachment, brought in the Pettis circuit court March 29, 1887; and at the May term following a change of venue was taken to the Johnson circuit court, where the cause was subsequently tried, and, judgment being rendered for plaintiff, defendants have appealed to this court. The matter at issue relates to the attachment proceedings in the cause.
On March 29, 1887, when the action was commenced, the plaintiff filed with the clerk of the Pettis circuit court the following paper, intending the same, evidently, as an affidavit for attachment. We copy the paper here:
"State of Missouri, "County of Pettis,
ss.
"Albert Parker, president of the Third National Bank of Sedalia, Missouri, being sworn for, and in behalf of, said bank, the plaintiff herein, on his oath says: That the plaintiff in the above entitled cause •has a just demand against the defendants' therein, which will become due on the eighteenth day of May, A. D. 1887, and that the amount which this affiant believes the plaintiff ought to recover, when the same becomes due, is two thousand dollars; and that this affiant has good reason to believe, and does believe,that the defendants have fraudulently conveyed and assigned' their property and effects so as to hinder and delay their creditors, and that defendants are about fraudulently to convey and assign their property and effects so as to hinder and delay their creditors, and that defendants have fraudulently concealed, removed and disposed of their property and effects so as to hinder and delay their creditors, and are about fraudulently to conceal, remove and dispose of their property and effects so as to hinder and delay their creditors.
" Subscribed and sworn to before me this -th day of March, A. D. 1887.
"Filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Pettis county, Missouri, on the twenty-ninth day of March, 1887."
The transcript was filed in the Johnson county circuit court June 13, 1887, and, on the same day, Y. E. Shaw, an attorney for the plaintiff, and in the plaintiff's behalf, made and filed an attachment affidavit (in lieu of the paper above quoted) and which, too, seems in proper form, signed and sworn to.
On October 20, 1887, defendants filed their motion to quash the writ of attachment issued on the twenty-ninth day of March, 1887, for the following reasons:
First. Because at the time of the issuance, of said writ of attachment there had been filed no affidavit setting forth the grounds of the attachment filed in this cause, as required by the statutes, and that said writ of attachment and attachment proceedings, by reason thereof, are null and void. Second. Because said attachment proceedings are null and void upon their face.
In opposition to this motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavits of Mr. Shirk, plaintiff's attorney, Albert Parker, president of the plaintiff corporation, and M. W. Brady, the deputy clerk of the Pettis circuit court — all tending to show that said Parker was sworn to the paper, heretofore copied, at the institution of the suit, and that, by mistake or oversight, Parker neglected to affix his signature thereto, and the clerk, for the like reason, neglected to sign the jurat and affix-the court's seal. And thereupon the said Parker did affix his signature to said paper as the affiant, and Brady, as deputy clerk, signed the jurat annexed thereto. Whereupon the court overruled the motion to quash the writ of attachment, to which ruling defendants saved exceptions and now assign such action of the circuit court as error.
I. In calling for this extraordinary relief by attachment, whereby the power of the state is brought into action to seize on, and hold to, the assets of an alleged debtor until the creditor may, or may not, establish his claim, the law has imposed on him, seeking such aid in advance of a judgment in his favor, the giving a bond to secure defendant in case of wrongful attachment; and, further, to guard against indiscreet action as much as possible, the party asking the writ is required to file his .affidavit (or the affidavit of some one for him) as to the nature and justice of his claim, as well as to allege therein the ground, or grounds, of - attachment. It is, therefore, repeatedly, and very properly, held that this affidavit is an indispensable prerequisite to the issue of the writ of attachment. Without such affidavit, no court, or clerk thereof, has authority, or jurisdiction, .to' command, in the state's name, the seizure of a defendant's property. If, then, when the writ of attachment in this case was issued on March 29, 1887, there was not present, filed with the clerk, an affidavit for attachment, as the law requires, the issue thereof was wholly unwarranted, void and without jurisdiction, If, however, there was an affidavit, but defective, then it might be amended, and would support the writ.
We have no hesitancy in saying that the paper filed with the petition in this cause was not an affidavit, defective or otherwise. Webster defines an affidavit as "a sworn statement in writing ; a declaration or statement 'in writing signed and made upon oath before an authorized magistrate." "An affidavit," says Biggs, J., in Norman v. Horn, 36 Mo. App. 419, "is a written statement or declaration sworn to before some officer authorized by law to administer oaths, and signed at the end by the affiant."
In Hargadine v. VanHorn, supra, Napton, J., speaking for our supreme court, uses this language : "In the present case there was no affidavit at all, that is, the paper described and referred to by the clerk as the one upon which the writ of attachment issued was not signed by any one, and was, therefore, no affidavit." It seems in the Hargadine case there was a jurat attached, signed by the officer administering the oath, and that Judges Sherwood and Norton dissented. But even they, in a dissenting opinion, made no claim, or remark even, suggesting that such a paper as we have here could be deemed an affidavit. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Sherwood says : "It is the official certificate which gives authenticity to the written oath, and not the signature of the affiant." While,then, the entire court agreed to the necessity of the jurat, signed by the officer, three insisted on a like necessity of the affiant's signature to the paper to make an affidavit justifying an attachment.
In the case now under consideration the paper filed with the clerk as an affidavit for attachment is possessed of neither of the above requisites, It is signed by no affiant, nor authenticated by any officer authorized to administer oaths. It is nothing more, in effect, than a blank piece of paper wanting in every ingredient characterizing an affidavit. And, whatever may be the opinion of the minority in the Hargadine case, the majority of the court then- held that a paper assuming to be an attachment affidavit, but unsigned by the affiant, is no affidavit, and this ruling has not, to our knowledge, ever been overruled. The conflict arising from the decision in Burnett v. McCluey, 92 Mo. 230, is not upon this point. The affidavit in controversy there is the same dealt with in Bray v. McCluey, 55 Mo. 128, and in Burnett v. McCluey, 78 Mo. 676, and was simply that the attachment defendants were not residents of the state and such affidavit did not purport on its face to be an affidavit for attachment. It was held by a divided court, in the disposition of the two former cases, that the paper was not an affidavit for attachment; while in the ninety-second the court holds that it is an affidavit for attachment, and, though defective, was in a collateral proceeding sufficient to support a judgment. In no case, in this state or elsewhere, do we find that a mere blank paper, unsigned by the affiant and authenticated by any one authorized to administer oaths, was taken to fill the place of an attachment affidavit. Being, then, a mere nullity, the paper filed in this cause gave no authority to the clerk to issue the writ of attachment. And, being a nullity, there was nothing by which to amend, as was attempted in this case. Owens v. Johns, 59 Mo. 89; Norman v. Horn, 36 Mo. App. 419; Hargadine v. VanHorn, 72 Mo. 370; and cases cited, supra.
For the error, then, of the trial court in overruling the motion to quash the writ of attachment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
All concur.