Biscailuz

A former decision of this case is reported in 21 Pac. Rep. 15 . (See infra.) After that decision was filed a rehearing was granted on the second point discussed in the opinion; viz., the alleged insufficiency of the guardian's petition for the sale of Victoria Jordan’s interest in the real property in controversy.

For the purpose of that decision we conceded, without deciding, that the petition was radically defective, hut held that the order of sale was rendered valid by the clause added to section 1537 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the amendment of 1874.

Upon the rehearing, counsel for the respective parties have elaborate^ reargued both the question as to the sufficiency of the petition and the effect of said amendment.

Appellants contend that the petition in this case cannot be distinguished on principle from the petition which was held sufficient in Fitch v. Miller, 20 Cal. 352 . Respondents, conceding the binding authority of that decision, point out what they contend are substantial differences between the two petitions. No doubt there are differences, but whether they are substantial and vital or not is a question not free from difficulty.

What the statute then…