Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/180

 168 'PEDBBAL EBPOETBR. �review the adjudication. It is a collateral suit. Gabriel Netter does not raise the question. It doea not appear that he ever raised it in the bankruptcy court by asking to have the proceeding as to him vacated, on the ground that Albert Net- ter was not his agent. There can be no doubt that the bank- ruptcy court acquired jurisdiction of the case in respect to Gabriel Netter, and so in respect to the firm, although the petition was signed and verified on his behalf, and for him, and not by him personally. The prescription in varions other places in the statute as to how an agent shall do cer- tain acts in:bankruptcy matters, cannot be construed into a provision that the signing and verifying of a petition in vol- untary bankruptcy by an agent of the debtor, where the peti- tion purports to be the petition of the debtor, shall not be regarded as a suffieient signing and verifying by the debtor, so as to require it to be held, in a collateral action, that the court did not acquire Jurisdiction of the proceeding. �Whether there was satisfactory evidence before the bank- ruptcy court that Albert Netter was the agent of Gabriel Netter, and authorized to present and sign the petition in the name and behalf of Gabriel Netter, and to verify it and the schedule and inventory on the behalf of Gabriel Netter, and whether the averments of the petition and the oaths as to the agency and authority, and the forms of the oaths in other respects, were adequate and suf&cient to satisfy that court of the existence of the agency and authority, and of the formai sufficiency of the petition and oaths, were ques- tions exclusively for the consideration of the bankruptcy court, and cannot be reviewed in this suit. There were in the petition, and in the signatures to it, and in the oaths, and in the signatures to them, such averments and state- ments as to the fact that Albert Netter was the agent of and the attorney in fact for Gabriel Netter, as authorized the bankruptcy court to exercise its judgment as to whether it was satisfied of the existence of such agency and attorney- ship, and to determine that it was so satisfied, if it was so satisfied. Being so authorized and having so determined, it must be held to have had jurisdiction of the case; and ita ��� �