Wood v. St. Paul City Railway Company

• Decision Date: 29 January 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 308,42 Minn. 411
• Parties: John Wood, Jr., v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc. Percival Roberts v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc. Robert Allison and others v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 N.W. 308

42 Minn. 411

John Wood, Jr., v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc. Percival Roberts v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc. Robert Allison and others v. St. Paul City Railway Company, impleaded, etc

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 29, 1890

Each of these actions was brought in the district court for Ramsey county, to enforce a lien on a cable street railway of defendant, for material furnished to the New York Cable Railway Construction Co., the contractor by which the railway was built. The first of the actions was tried by Vilas, J who ordered judgment, establishing a lien for $ 1,023.19 and interest. After his decease, a new trial was denied by Brill J. The second and third cases were tried by Brill, J., who ordered like judgments, viz., for $ 4,419.36 and interest in the second case, and for $ 7,630.76 and interest in the third case, and in each case refused a new trial. The railway company appeals from each of the orders refusing a new trial. At the trial, in each case, the lien statement offered in evidence by plaintiff was sworn to before a notary public in Philadelphia, and affixed to his signature to the jurat was his title, "Notary Public," and what purported to be his notarial seal. No proof was offered of the genuineness of the signature or seal, or that the person signing the jurat was a notary, or that, if a notary, he was authorized to administer oaths. In each case the statement was admitted against defendant's objection, and an exception was duly taken.

Order affirmed.

H. J Horn, for appellant in each case.

Rogers Hadley & Selmes, for respondents in first and second cases.

John B. & W. H. Sanborn, for respondents in third case.

OPINION

Mitchell, J.

Gen St. 1878, c. 90, §§ 6, 7, (relating to mechanics' liens,) provide that the statement of the account, required to be filed and recorded, shall be verified by the oath of the party or his agent, but is entirely silent as to where or before whom such affidavits shall be made. To hold that the statute requires them to be made within the state, or, if without the state, that the oath must be administered by a commissioner for the state of Minnesota, would be to put a construction upon the act at once unauthorized by its language, and unsuited to the business habits and necessities of the country. Nothing short of express legislation would justify any such rule. We think these affidavits may be made in another state, before any officer authorized by the laws of such state to administer oaths. Of course, if taken in another state, they must be duly authenticated, so as to show on their face the official character of the officer, as well as his authority to administer oaths. In each of the present cases the affidavit was sworn to in Pennsylvania before a notary public of that state, who authenticated it by signing the jurat, and affixing his notarial seal. If, instead of being affidavits, these had been certificates of protest or authentications of similar commercial documents, it is elementary law that the notary's seal would prove itself, without any further proof of his official character or of his authority to do the act. A notary public is considered not merely an officer of the country where he is admitted or appointed, but as a kind of...