Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Barrett v. Josylnn 29 N.Y.S. 1070

← Cases

Barrett v. Josylnn

29 N.Y.S. 1070 Court Buffalo Super. Ct. Decision date 1894-07-05 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1070
(9 Misc. Rep. 407.)
BARRETT v. JOSYLNN.
(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term.
July 5, 1894.)

Headnote

Pleading—Subscribing Complaint.
. Signing the verification of a complaint in the municipal court of Buffalo is equivalent to subscribing the complaint as required by the revised charter of Buffalo, § 459.
Appeal from special term.
p. 1071
Action by George W. Barrett against Henry B. Josylnn. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before TITUS, C. J., and HATCH and WHITE, JJ.
Charles T. Gardner, for appellant.
William C. Kilhoffer, for respondent.

The only question raised on this appeal is that the complaint is not subscribed by the “plaintiff or his attorney,’’ as required by section 459 of the revised charter, regulating the practice in the municipal court. The complaint was verified by the plaintiff, as required by the Code, and he signed his name to the verification, but did not subscribe the complaint itself. In Harrison v. Wright, 1 N. Y. St. Rep. 730 , where the precise question was up, it was held, by the unanimous opinion of the general term of this court, that the signature of the plaintiff to the affidavit was a sufficient subscription of the complaint to meet the requirements of the statute. As no authority is shown us, holding differently, and on facts exactly parallel, we must follow the law as laid down in that case. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited