This is an appeal by Benjamin Close from the judgment of the superior court in and for Humboldt county adjudging him an insolvent debtor, and from an order denying his application for an allowance from his estate of money sufficient to employ counsel, pay costs, expenses, etc.

The petition is in the following language:

The respondent therein, who is the appellant here, demurred to the petition upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or petition under the Insolvent Act of 1880.

The demurrer was overruled, and such ruling is assigned as error. The petition is sufficient within the *579 rulings of the court in Wright v. Cohn, 88 Cal. 328 , and In re Dennery, 89 Cal. 107 .

It shows that all of the petitioners are residents of the state of California; that the demands are due, and accrued in this state; the nature and amount of their several demands, and the other facts required by section 8 of the Insolvent Law, approved April 16,1880. (Stats. 1880, p. 82.)

The demurrer was properly overruled.

A motion was also made to strike out the petition, “upon the ground that the same is not verified by three of the petitioners named therein.”

The motion was overruled, and error is predicated upon such ruling.

As will be observed, the affidavit is by three persons, one of whom (C. J. Paddock) swears he is “vice-president of J. A. Folger & Co. (a corporation), one of the petitioners.”

Section 446 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in reference to the verifications of pleadings, that, when a corporation is a party, “the verification may be made by any officer thereof.”

A vice-president certainly is or may be an officer of a corporation, and, when he states under oath that he is such officer, it is sufficient. It is not more necessary for a vice-president to set out the fact of his selection as an officer of the corporation than it would be for the president, secretary, or other officer to do so.

A vice-president, or one who acts in the place of and instead of the president, is an officer well known and recognized by the law in incorporated companies.

His statement in an affidavit to a pleading that he is such officer is sufficient to give validity thereto.

The motion on the part of the appellant here for an allowance of two hundred and fifty dollars from his estate to employ counsel and pay expenses, etc., was properly refused for two reasons: 1. The law makes no provision for such an allowance; 2. The petition therefor was insufficient.

*580 It did not show the nature or value of the estate. It may well be that the sum asked was in excess of the entire assets of the estate of the insolvent.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.

Vanclief, C., and Belcher, C., concurred.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the • judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Temple, J., Henshaw, J., McFarland, J.