Re Earl's Trust
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1858 |
| Date | 30 July 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 70 E.R. 126
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Evidence. Affidavit sworn in a foreign Country. Notary Public. Signature of Notary. Notarial Seal. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 22. Judicial Cognizance. Practice.
126 IN RE EARI/S TRUST 4K. &J.800. [300] In re earl's trust. V.-C. Wood : April 17; Lords Justices: April 23,1858. Evidence. Affidavit sivorn in a foreign Country. Notary Public. Signature of Notary. Notarial Seal. 15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 22. Judicial Cognizance. Practice. Where an affidavit is sworn before a notary public of a foreign country not under the dominion of the Queen, the signature of the notary must be verified before the affidavit can be filed, unless by consent; and the Court cannot take judicial cognizance of the notarial seal alone as a sufficient verification. The Clerk of Records and Writs objected to file a document, purporting to be an affidavit sworn before a notary public for the county of Hertford, in the State of Ohio, in America, and bearing a seal purporting to be the notarial seal for that county, upon the ground that the jurat was insufficient, inasmuch as there was nothing to shew that the person before whom the document was represented to have been sworn was, in fact, a notary public. Mr. Collins now applied for leave to have the document filed as an affidavit, citing Eaggitt v. Iniff (5 De G. M. & G. 910). [301] the vice-chancellor. In that case there was a certificate under the official seal of our own consul at New York that the person before whom the affidavit was sworn was a notary public. Mr. Collins submitted that the notarial seal was sufficient verification (15 & 16 Viet. c. 86, s. 22). the vice-chancellor, after referring to the registrar, said he would inquire into the practice in such cases. On a subsequent day His Honour said he had made inquiry into the practice, and found that he could not direct the document to be filed without an affidavit, or such a certificate as in Haggitt v. Iniff, verifying the signature of the alleged notary public. The official seal of a notary public of a foreign country not under the dominion of the Queen was not one of which this Court could take judicial cognizance. April 23. lords justices (ex relatione Mr. Collins). Upon the matter being brought before the Lords Justices, their Lordships required the attendance of Mr. Murray, of the Eecord and Writ Clerks' Office; and upon his stating that the document might be filed as an affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grealey v Sampson
...(1) Cro. El. 493. (2) 4 Y. & C. 160. (3) 1 Ves. J. 486. (4) 12 M. & W. 591. (5) 2 M. & S. 5. (6) 7 Ves. 98. (7) 2 Bos. & Pul. 500. (8) 4 K. & J. 673. (9) 15 Q. B. (10) [1910] 2 Ch. 328. (1) [1903] 1 Ch. 685. ...
-
Levitt v Levitt
...1); Garvey v. Hibbert (1 J. & W. 180); Haggitt v. Iniff (5 De G. M. & G. 910); on the sufficiency of the certificate to Re Earl's Trusts (4 K. & J. 300.) the vice-chancellor [Sir W. Page Wood], after consultation with the registrar, made the order. English Reports Citation: 71 E.R. 606 HIG......
-
O'Neill v Doran
...C. Court. O'NEILL and DORAN. Levitt v. LevittENR 2 H. & M. 626. Parkis v. Date 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 787, 5th Ed. Parkis v. DateENR 4 K. & J. 300. Practice — Affidavit — Foreign Court Certificate Von. X.] EQUITY SERIES. 187 O'NEILT, v. DORAI\. Practice-Affidavit-Foreign Court Certificate. In t......