it seems to me, are the considerations that should control the court in the exercise of its discretion in the premises.

Important questions of practice are made about the verifications. of the specifications, which are conceded also to be defective; but it is complained that we have no rules of practice in this district regulating these details, and in this and other cases the necessity for verification of the specifications in opposition to discharge has been denied. One of the learned counsel for creditors insisted in the beginning that they do not require verification, and that they might be signed by counsel, and filed without it; but that, if they do require verification, he would not undertake, as an attorney, to verify them. He pointed to the fact, however, that orms Nos. 57 and 58 and general orders 31 and 32 do not prescribe any form of verification, while other forms do append it wherever it is required. But this is only a fortuitous circumstance, I think, and quite indeterminate. These forms. naturally are fashioned on those under the act of 1867, which required verification only in those matters where it was specifically provided by that act, or where the supreme court, exercising its statutory power to make the rules of practice and forms, chose to demand it. I have gone over those forms, and compared them with the forms under the existing act. Generally, each verification appended to the old forms was required in terms by the statute of 1867, though sometimes this was not so, as in form No. 40, for the removal of an assignee, which prescribes verification without any direction of the statute (Bump, Bankr. [9th Ed.] 924); while form No. 52 of the act of 1898 exacts none for the removal of a trustee (Loveland, Bankr. 770). The precept for verification does not appear to have been uniformly guided by the statute in either set of these forms. However this may be, the command of the statute of 1898 is imperative that "all pleadings setting up matters of fact shall be verified by oath." Section 18c. The omission of the supreme court, therefore, to prescribe a verification for a petition for discharge on form No. 57 of 1898, or for the specifications in opposition thereto on form No. 58, cannot override this plain command of the statute, if either of them be a "pleading," and "sets up matters of fact." Under the act of 1867, there being no such requirement, a verification might be, and often was, pretermitted in contracting the forms of 1867. And it is apparent that the draftsman of the new forms of 1898 factitiously followed the forms of 1867 in the omission of a verification without noticing this distinction between the two statutes. Thus he made forms No. 57 and No. 58 of 1898 conform, in respect of this absence of a verification, to forms No. 51 and No. 53 of 1867. Bump, Bankr. (9th Ed.) 930, 932. But in the one case the statute permitted the omission, and in the other it does not. Therefore it does not appear that in prescribing these forms the supreme court in 1898 has deliberately ruled that the specifications in opposition to a discharge are not "a pleading," and do not require a verification, under section 18c. That the specifications do "set up matters of fact" is beyond dispute, and that they have the form and substance of "a pleading" is equally clear; which being so, the omission of a verification from the new forms is a mere inexactness of compliance with the statute by the

draftsman, and does not bind us here, because the supreme court has overlooked the blunder.

It having been suggested that section 18c occurs in a section mostly, if not exclusively, devoted to procedure on an involuntary petition, it is insisted that its direction in respect of the verification of pleadings should be confined to involuntary cases. But this argument, and the rule of statutory construction on which it is based, are without force when applied to such an obviously patchwork structure as the whole statute shows itself to be. Besides, it is not in fact a section entirely concerning involuntary cases, and is under a subtitle of very much larger scope,-"Courts and Procedure Therein." Again, neither the statute, the general orders, nor the forms make any distinction whatever between an application for discharge by a voluntary and one by an involuntary bankrupt. Nor do they suggest any distinction in the specifications in opposition thereto. Hence we are left confronted with the question whether they are "pleadings" in the sense of section 18c. This happens to be a voluntary case, but, if it were an involuntary case, precisely the same question would arise as to the verification being required by that section. Evidently it applies equally to both if it applies at all. There is a very narrow and technical sense in which the word "pleading" is confined both in law and equity practice to such formal written documents as the "declaration" or "bill," the "demurrer," the "plea" or "answer," a "disclaimer," and the like; but that is hardly the sense of this statute. Bouv. Dict. word "Pleadings." It has seemingly rather the broader meaning there given of "stating in logical and legal form the facts which constitute the plaintiff's cause of action or the defendant's ground of defense; it is the formal mode of alleging that on the record which constitutes the support or the defense of the party in evidence." Bouv. Dict. "Pleading in Civil Practice," citing 3 Term R. 159; Doug. 278; Com. Dig. "Pleader"; Bac. Abr. "Pleas and Pleading"; Cent. Dict. word "Pleading"; 1 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 654, citing and quoting Snelling v. Darrell, 17 Ga. 141, where the restricted and more general meanings are each aptly disclosed in relation to statutes authorizing amendments.

It is not necessary to go into any nice discriminations of the practice in law or equity as to whether or when "a petition" can or does become "a pleading," or when it is only a kind of extraneous statement for an outside purpose, and is dehors the technical record of the "pleadings." The bankruptcy practice is, in respect of this, sui generis. It is all done by "petition." It has no other formal statements except these and their concomitants, and in that relation the word "pleadings" of section 18c must mean "petitions," and can refer to nothing else but those statements which come within the definition above quoted of a civil pleading, and the ordinary understanding of the meaning of that word. Bouv. Dict. "Petition"; 16 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 500, 511; 1 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 655, 656. The bankrupt's "application for discharge" under section 14 is nothing more nor less than a "petition," and is so called in form No. 57. On the analogies of equity practice as to "petitions," those which are based wholly on the record, already made, and do not set up any extraneous

119 F.-33

facts outside of any statute, would not require verification; but, setting up such facts, they would require it. 16 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 517; 22 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 1023, 1024. A petition for discharge avers, inter alia, that the petitioner "has duly surrendered all his property." That is a fact outside the record, known possibly only to himself as to its truth; and so it would seem that both by the statute and according to the analogies it should be verified by his oath, although this form does not call for it. So, also, the "specification of grounds of opposition to bankrupt's discharge" (form 58) is either an "answer" to the bankrupt's petition for discharge, and therefore a "pleading," in almost any sense, even the most technical, or else it is an independent petition, though not such in its form, asking the court to deny to the bankrupt his discharge because of the matters of fact extraneous to the record set up therein as the grounds of the opposition; and in either case, by all the analogies of any practice, and by the very terms of the statute, it surely requires verification. I cannot conceive of any kind of "pleading" which so certainly demands a verification. as this "specification in writing." It is to all intents and purposes, under the statute, a criminal charge, or quasi criminal at least; and, while not possessing all the elements or consequences of criminal information or indictment, it is of so grave a nature that, if any "pleading" in any suit or practice reasonably demands verification by oath, that does most of all. Criminal informations are verified by the oath of the prosecuting officer or otherwise (10 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 451); and criminal indictments are verified by the oaths of the grand jurors. There is nothing in the bankruptcy record of so grave a nature as this, and it goes to the bifurcated root of the whole bankruptcy proceeding; for, on the one hand, the purpose is to distribute his voluntarily or involuntarily surrendered assets, and, on the other, to compensate him by a discharge. The shadow of the penitentiary also falls on his side of the general suit, when such charges are made; wherefore the reason for the exaction of all verifications is on the side of requiring it to such specifications, it seems to me. It was not so much so under the act of 1867, perhaps, though it must be admitted that this reasoning would have required it under that act also; and it was not demanded either by the statute or by the supreme court in its general orders or forms. And this may be the reason why the act of 1898 is so broad in its terms as expressed in section. 18c.

While the petition for discharge is founded on the original petition in bankruptcy, voluntary or involuntary, and the record built upon that foundation, it is, after all, quite an independent proceeding, as are the specifications in answer to it. This is apparent from the statute, the general orders, the forms, and the entire procedure relating to the discharge and opposition to it. For this reason, also, it comes within the motive of the law for demanding the verification of pleadings under oath, in civil practice, which charge fraud and the like against the respondent, and likewise pleading under oath in answer to such a charge. That guaranty of good faith is the general principle at the bottom of such requirements, either under code practice or the general law in pleadings where the exaction is made. For example,

in explaining what pleas in equity are to be put in under oath and what not, it is said that generally those require verification where it will be necessary "to establish their truth by evidence upon oath at the hearing" (2 Daniell, Ch. Prac. [1st Ed.] 211); for the principle is that the court will not permit a defendant to delay or evade the relief sought by the plaintiff "unless he will first pledge his oath to the truth (or at least to his belief of the truth) of the facts upon which he relies, in all cases where the facts are those of which the court does not take judicial notice." Id. 112. And that is recommended by the learned author as the test by which the practitioner is to determine whether a given plea should be sworn to or not. Id. And in this case that is an all-sufficient test, and sheds abundant light upon the meaning of section 18c of the bankruptcy statute. Again: "Under the rules of chancery pleading a plea of matters in pais must be sworn to, and it is held that the waiver of an answer under oath in a bill does not waive the oath to the plea. A plea of matter of record need not be filed under oath, such a plea being proved by the production of the record." 16 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 594; Equity Rules 31, 32. 4 Desty, Fed. Proc. (9th Ed.) 517, gives form of verification of such a plea. It is a general rule that all petitions should be verified by an affidavit "that the facts therein contained are true, as far as known to petitioner, and that those facts which he states as knowing from others he believes to be true." Bouv. Dict. "Petition." And again, a petition should be signed by the party presenting it, and, when the facts upon which the application is based are not immediately before the court, a petition must be verified by oath; and that is also the practice in regard to petitions generally. 16 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 517; Swan v. Newman, 3 Head, 288. So this reason for the oath, and this test of discrimination whether it is due or not, permeates the civil practice everywhere, regulated definitely, sometimes, by statute and the Codes, but in federal practice mostly by the general law, unless by statute in particular instances, as in this bankruptcy statute. As to the verification of a bill, see 1 Daniell, Ch. Prac. (1st Ed.) 503; Id. (5th Ed.) 311, note 7; Id. 312, 313, 392395. If there be several parties, all must join. Id. 396. For the verification by a corporation, see Id. 394, note 4, 396; for a form of the oath, see Id. 394, note 4; Id. 392, note 4; and for a corporation, Id. 2171, note I; Id. 2172, note 4; Equity Rule 24; Fost. Fed. Prac. (3d Ed.) § 87, p. 240; Bates, Fed. Eq. Prac. § 123; 22 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 1015-1052. As to answers, all must be sworn to, unless the court specifically directs otherwise, or the oath be waived, where that privilege exists; though the reasons for that practice are somewhat different from those given for the verification of bills, pleas, and petitions, at least so far as pure equity practice is concerned. Unlike bills, the signature to answers is by the, party himself, and not by attorney or solicitor; and so is the verification by oath, unless, again, by special direction, the court shall permit the signature and oath to the answer to be taken verbally by commission, and received without signature and oath, or that they be made by an agent duly and formally authorized. 2 Daniell, Ch. Prac. (1st Ed.) 268, 286; Fost. Fed. Prac. (3d Ed.) § 151; Bates, Fed. Eq. Prac. §§ 337,

342 (where the form of signature and verification both by natural persons and corporations are given); 22 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 1022, 1024, 1035, 1041-1043; Equity Rule 59. These are believed to be quite all the analogies to guide us in determining the practice in bankruptcy cases where the general orders and forms do not specifically direct us. General Order 37; Equity Rule 90.

In the very beginning there was a rule made by this court that attorneys should not be allowed to verify by oath the pleadings and proceedings in bankruptcy practice. The foregoing authorities show conclusively that such is the general rule in all courts, unless it has been changed by statute, and there is no act of congress permitting it. Where there is no statute, the practice in equity-and it is the same in bankruptcy—is that, when a party had to sign the pleading (as, for instance, an answer in chancery), or when a party had to verify the pleading, the signing or verification had to be done personally, and could not be done by attorney, both as to natural persons and as to corporations. In extraordinary circumstances-as that the party was beyond seas, or was mentally or physically incapacitated, or where the facts were peculiarly within the knowledge of the attorney, or the like the court could make a special order that the signature and oath might be made by an agent or attorney; but always the previous order must be had, and the form of verification. and signature must set out the special facts as a reason for the departure from ordinary practice; and this rule was very strict. The reason for it is plain, that the adversary party shall have the responsible person bound by his own act, so that he should not be able to repudiate it, and put the other to the proof of an express or implied authority in the attorney, who might have neither, and, in the absence of a statutory authority, would have neither, except where the preliminary order of the court before mentioned had provided against that absence of authority. If the adversary party should challenge by a suit for malicious prosecution or otherwise that which had been done, it would be unjust, obviously, that he should be confronted with this interjection of outside and conveniently available defenses arising. out of a denial of the attorney's authority. It is a very convenient and easy-going practice to allow attorneys to swear for their clients, saves time often, and expense, is one to which attorneys may readily resort, and is tempting, in fact, for these reasons; particularly if the swearing for one's client may be done upon "information and belief" as of course. But it is none the less a loose and unwise practice, condemned by the courts quite generally, even where it has been authorized by statute. In Johnson v. Murray, 12 Lea, 109, 116, Chancellor Cooper uses these apt words:

"The difficulties in this case, it may be added, have grown out of the loose practice, which ought never to be sanctioned, of permitting an answer to be filed without the signature of parties. The practice is equally objectionable of permitting petitions to be filed, signed, and sworn to by agents and solicitors, instead of by the parties themselves. The chancellor must have allowed the first petition, purporting to be by May and wife, to be withdrawn because it was not authenticated by, and therefore not binding on, them. But for this very reason neither petition ought to have been received."