Rogers v. De Soto Placer Mining Co.

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is, we think, no doubt of the sufficiency of the verification in question. The only requirement of the bankruptcy act relative to verification of pleadings is found in section 18, subd. “c,” Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 551 (11 U.S.C.Á. § 41(c) : “All pleadings setting up matters of fact shall be verified under oath.” Here was a *349 verification by the attorney of the petitioners, made because of their absence from the District of Alaska, and their consequent inability to verify it, and based upon his knowledge of the facts. We can conceive of no good reason why such a verification is not good under the circumstances stated in the affidavit, and it has been held sufficient by a number of the federal courts.

Thus, in the Matter of Herzikopf (D.C.) 118 Fed. 101 , it was said by Judge Wellborn:

In the Matter of Vastbinder (D.C.) 126 F. 418 , the court said: “There can be no doubt as to the right of an attorney in fact to make the necessary oath, where the facts are within his own knowledge, and this will be assumed where the oath is in positive terms.”

To the same effect are the cases In re…