Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/131

iLLEN V. THOMPSON. 119 �■Shelby and state of Tennessee, in said district, have resided, as aforesaid, for six montlis next immediately preceding the filing of this petition, etc." ihere are attached to the petition schedules pnrport- ing to be those of the firm liabiiities and assets, and of John G. Lons- dale's individual liabiiities and assets, but nothing purporting to be schedules of Thompson's individual liabiiities and assets. �From this analysis of the petition we are now considering, and this statement from the record, it will be seen how inartificial and defect- ive it is, considered as one to set aside the disoharge and supersede the proceedings for causes not mentioned in section 5120 of the Revised Statutes. If this demurrer should be sustained because of these defects the petition could be amended, and although it does not set out the original bankruptcy proceedings in so full a manner as to raise all the questions involved, nor make the record an exhibit, as it should do, I have, in pursuance of my habit to wind up the old bankruptcy business of this court as best we can, coricluded to treat the petition as if the record were an exhibit to it, and as if it were more specifie in the allegations based upon that record, though- 1 think such a practice -wholly subversive of orderly procedure. But we never had, in this court, any rules regulating the praetice in bankruptcy, outside of the general orders of the supreme court, and I know, from my own experience at the bar, how difficult it was for a lawyer to determine how to proceed in their absence in matters not regulated by the statuts or general orders. Since the repeal of the act it would be useless to prescribe rules, and there is excuse for not too much scrutiny of informalities of the kind mentioned. �The demurrer admits the facts stated to be true, and the first question is whether a creditor who bas proved bis debt can, at this stage of the proceedings, object to the jurisdiction of the court io grant the discharge. The jurisdiction is denied on two grounds, essentially different in their character : First, the creditor alleges be had no notice, and none was given to him or other creditors who had proved their debts, of the application by Thompson for a discharge, as required by section 5109 of the Revised Statutes, which enacts: �"Upon application for a discharge being made, the court shall order notice to be given by;mail to all creditera who have proyefd their debts, and by pub- lication, at least once a week, in such newspapers as the court shnll designate, due regnrd being had to the general circulation of the same in the district, or in that portion of the district in which the bankrupt and bis creditors' shall reside, to appear on a day appointed for that purpose, and show cause why » discharge siiould not be granted to the bankrupt." ReV. St. § 5109. ��� �