Fill and Sign the Affidavit by Corporate Officer Before a Notary Public Form

Affidavit by Corporate Officer Page 1 of 2 Affidavit by Corporate Officer before a Notary Public State of (Name of State) County of (Name of County) PERSONALLY appeared before me, the undersigned authority in and for said county and state, , who, having been being first duty sworn by (Name of Affiant) the undersigned Notary Public, deposes and says: 1. He is the of , (Title of Affiant) (Name of Corporation) a corporation organized and existing under the laws of with (Name of State) its principal office located at , and in whose behalf (Street Address, City, County, State, Zip Code) he makes this affidavit. 2. . (Statement of facts) The above-mentioned corporation has caused this instrument to be executed in its behalf, pursuant to authority of its Board of Directors, by its , (Title of Affiant) and its corporate seal to be attached, attested by its , on (Title of Affiant) .
. 3. A duly authorized officer or agent of said corporation has executed and attached in its behalf this certificate before me made out and subscribed by (name of affiant) in the presence of the same: (notarized copy) and, in conformity with the laws of this state, I here certify that this certificate is a true copy of the instrument, duly sworn to in my presence by and before (name of affiant) and his . (name of signatory) state's evidence. State's evidence, although not absolutely conclusive, is competent, especially in view of the fact that the corporation had not, and had no right to, know of the existence of the instrument under dispute, until after it had been executed by it. We have repeatedly said that the rule of civil practice (see w. Ravine v. State, 22 ohio st. 333, 351) requires the state to produce its evidence in support of an affirmative defense against a judgment for a defendant. (bureau of criminal identification, inc. V. Ritter, 25 BUC. App. 845, 946; commonwealth v. Daley, 34 mass. 488, 490; state v. Novel, 35 md. App. 588, 589.) the court in state v. Thought, 33 ohio st. 1, 35, (state v. O'connell, 29 Ohio st. 227, 227, affd. Dem. And dismissed for want o of subject jurisdiction as improv. To state v. Daley), stated that “[t]he question is not the power of the court but the duty of it." citing that rule, we now consider the state's evidence, as given. B. The deed the deed, signed as aforesaid, was executed on the day and at the place mentioned in the petition. The signature of the deed is genuine. It is signed “charles w. Dolph and family" and is subscribed by "sidney dolph. Jr." the deed clearly shows that the deed is issued in the name of the corporation, for the designation of the issue of the corporation as “the dolph family." on the face of the deed it clearly shows that the corporation did not intend to use the name under which it was then in existence. In the absence of any other evidence which would tend to show an intention to change its name from the name of the original corporation, we find no error.