
    CASE 62 — PETITION EQUITY
    JANUARY 24.
    Laha vs. Daly’s adm’r.
    APPEAL FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.
    vA clerk of a court is authorized to administer oaths and certify the affidavits of claimants to demands against decedents’ estates. (1 Slant. Rev, Stat., chap. 37, sec. 35; Civil Code, sec. 611.J
    W. Howell, For Appellant.
    L. R. Thurman, On same side,
    CITED—
    
      Sec. 35, 1 Stant. Rev. Stat.,p. 509.
    15 B. Mon., 183 ; Thomas’ ex’or vs. Thomas.
    
    1 Met., 599; Trabue’s ex’or vs. Harris.
    
    Wintersmith, For Appellee,
    CITED—
    
      Secs. 35, 36, 37, chap. 37, 1 Stant. Rev. Stat., 509 — 10.
    
      Sub-sec. 3, sec. 3, art. 3, chap. 17, Rev. Stat.
    
    
      Sub-sec. 4, sec. 1, art. 24, chap. 27, Rev. Stat.
    
    
      W. B. Read, On same side,
    CITED—
    1 Rev. Stat., 509, secs. 35, 36.
    
      Sec. 473, Civil Code.
    
   JUDGE WILLIAMS

delivered the opinion op the court :

The affidavit of Laha to his claims against decedent’s estate is a substantial compliance with the statute as to form and statements.

It is insisted, however, that the clerk who certified the affidavit had no legal authority to do so under sub-section 3, section 3, article 3, chapter 17, 1 Stanton's Revised Statutes, 250. But Civil Code, section 611, provides that affidavits may be made before a clerk of a court, and this whether pertaining to any matter concerning his office or pending in the court; and section 35, chapter 37, 1 Stanton's Revised Statutes, 509, especially requires that all demands against a decedent’s estate “ shall be verified by the written affidavit of the claimant.”

We think the Code fully authorizes clerks to administer the oath and certify the affidavit; consequently, the court erred in dismissing appellant’s petition on rule.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed.  