The only questions presented by this appeal are as to the sufficiency of the petition and the verification. They are as follows: —

The objection to the petition is, that it does not show that the creditors were creditors of the partnership rather than of D. L. and W. B. Wright as individuals. The allegation is, that D. L. and W. B. Wright, doing business as partners under the firm name of D. L. & W. B. Wright, are indebted, etc., and not that the firm of D. L. & W. B. Wright are indebted, etc. I think this averment can only be understood as charging that the indebtedness arose in the business of the copartnership.

There is no provision in the Insolvent Act for adjudging two or more persons insolvent and providing for a joint assignment, except section 35, which authorizes such proceedings in favor of or against partners, in reference to partnership debts and assets. In such case the proceeding is properly for or against them individually as partners. This must be so, for the separate estate of each member of the firm also passes to the assignee. And such was the practice in bankruptcy in the federal courts. Partnership debts are, after all, only *332 joint obligations, and the firm cannot be insolvent unless the individual members are so. It is doubtless necessary to show what the partnership debts are, for various questions are likely to arise between individual and firm creditors in marshaling of the assets and paying debts. The form adopted here in the averment of the partnership indebtedness is quite similar to that which has always been employed in pleading partnership indebtedness, and I think is sufficient.

The objection to the verification is, that it is in the usual form for the verification of a pleading, which includes matters stated on information and belief.

There are no matters in the petition stated to be on information and belief, and the statute does not prescribe the form of the verification. Where different creditors, however, having several debts, are required to join in a verification, some of the matters must necessarily be stated upon the information-and belief of each of the affiants.

I think the petition and- verification sufficient, and the judgment and orders appealed from should be affirmed.

Vanclief, C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.