Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/799

. IN KBJD.ONNELLT. i ISX �1876, gtfeatly enlarged their powersj and frota the termsof theisection it is^quîîe maûifeattthat congjressjdiesigned to confer upon them the same authority, in regard to taking.tesK tiHiuJnj' and affidftyitb tff be used. in the 0Ourta of the lînifed States, as : ■was] thto' possessed by thô, commissiouers of the circuit court. Thiseftatute, unlike. the aet of rl874i; is silent as to such offieers a.ttesting.,their acts by 'their. officiai seali It is, therefon8,;d6ubtfuI whether, in this district, the. courte.' oî the United' Sitaiw îwould deem such an attestation indis- pensable, especially. as tiie laws of the state espressly provide; thai.no.flhch ceritification is necessary to; the validity or suf- ficîencypf any oai'h, affirmation, or affidavit.^ See "Act rela- tive to ôaths and iaffidavits," Rev. : SI' N; J. 740, ;§ 2. ' : �: Buti*îthout dwelling upon this view, 1 am of;the opinion that the defectsalluded to are;matters affeeting the regular-; ity of the proceedings, rather than the jurisdiction of the court. The books are fuU of casea to this-ieïïect, although it. is admitted thatthere aresome respectablfe àuthofities to the oontrary. Jurisdiction dbes not depënii ripoi the manner or the method ofrverifying either the-.petition;or proofs of debt. In re Simnions, 10 N. B. R. 258; Irairei^ajjTiorj. 11 Blatehf. eZ; Ex pkrU'Jewett; 11 N. B. E. M3; In TeMeKibbed, 12 N. B. E. 97; ; In re Hannibel, 15 N.oB. E. ^37 ; In re JRocAe v. EoT-e; SliN; B. E< 461;: Inre G.W.GiteheU,'8.'Besnj-25S. �llnre Simmbns:, supra^ ihe laie Jndge; Lonrgjfear, .foUowing! bis previous decision In re^McNauf/htôn, 8. NjB. R. 44,* held that the jurisdietion of the court in:Qowise depend«d upon the vierification of the petition; that the banlçrupt àct did. not expressly lequire ahy ybrificatiop i^ in' involuntary casea;;^ aiwlfthatià verification wasionly necessàny under the' ruli^ ;and regula-tions of the supreme court ip'order to found upon^tbe pôtitionaTi orderupon Ithe debtor to-BhowoatUtse why h€ should not;be'adj;udged à biankrùpt. '■' n < : ^ �Inre Eayûàr, supra, the- lateiJudge Woodruii distlûotly in- timates, by 'imi yfkole. coursa ■■ of refàs^ning, that the question of jurisdietion is not involved: in -the method ctsigning or the màhrier ipf aœfcheriticating ihe^ petition in bankr uptcy, jn? i-nvol- ����