Burdekin, Public Officer, Company, v Potter and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 November 1841
Date04 November 1841
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 6

EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.

Burdekin, Public Officer
&c.
and
Potter and Others

S. C. 1 Dowl. (N. S.) 134; 11 L. J. Ex. 82; 5 Jur. 992. Referred to, Ex parte Johnson; In re Chapman, 1884, 26 Ch. D. 345.

[13] burdekin, Public Officer, &c., v. potter and othkrs. Exch. of Pleas. Nov. 4, 1841.-An affidavit, entitled in the proper Court, and purporting to be sworn before A. B., "a commissioner, &c.," is sufficient: the jurat need not state that he is a commissioner for taking affidavits in that Court. [S. C. I Dowl. (N. S.) 134 ; 11 L. J. Ex. 82 ; 5 Jur. 992. Referred to, fix parle Johnson; In re Oha-pman, 1884, '26 Ch. D. 345.] Erie moved for a rule to shew cause why the judgment signed upon a warrant of attorney given by the defendants in this cause, for 20,000, and the execution thereon, should not be set aside. One of the objections on which he relied was, that the jurat of the affidavit of the execution of the warrant of attorney described it as "sworn before , a commissioner, &c.," without stating that he was a commissioner for taking affidavits in this Court. The affidavit was duly entitled in the cause in this Court. He referred to Ret, v. Hare (13 East, 189), Howard v. Brown (4 Bing. 393; 1 M. & P. 22), and a case of Tartu v. Banieti, decided in this Court on the last day of last Trinity term (not reported). lord abinger, (.'. B. I think this objection cannot prevail. If you go upon any principle, it would seem that if the party be named at all, the Court may examine to see whether he is one of its commissioners. I doubt whether any thing at all need be added to his name. parkb, B...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Cheney v Courtois
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 22 January 1863
    ...court. The like was held in White v. Irving, 5 Dowl. P. C. 289, and Daley v. Alafum, 6 Dowl. P. C. 192. Again, in Bunlekin v. Potter, 9 M. & W. 13, it was held that an affidavit, intituled in the proper court, and purporting to be sworn before " A. B., a commissioner, &c.," was sufficient, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT