Case Name: In the Matter of Henry A. Mann an alleged Bankrupt
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1875-02
Citations: 51 How. Pr. 199
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Henry A. Mann an alleged Bankrupt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 199–200

Head Matter:
U. S. CIRCUIT COURT.
In the Matter of Henry A. Mann an alleged Bankrupt.
Northern District of New York.
Note.—The following statement should havebeen published with judge Johnson’s opinion (ante, page 174), but was not received in time.— [Rep.
The petition in this matter was filed in the clerk’s office of the northern district of Hew York, January, 1876, by Harriet H. Badgeley a creditor to the amount of $300.
The petition contained the following averment: “ That your petitioner believes she constitutes one-fourth in number of the creditors of the said Mann, whose demands exceed the amount of $250, which are provable; and that your petitioner believes her said demand constitutes one-third of the debts, provable as aforesaid.” &c.
The verification was in the usual printed form as follows :
“ I, H. H. B., the petitioner above named, do hereby make solemn oath that the statements contained in the foregoing petition subscribed by me are true, so far as the same are stated, of my own knowledge; and that those matters which are stated therein, on information and beliefj are true according the best of my knowledge, information and belief.”
The order to show cause was returnable before the district court at Albany, January 18, 1876, at which time L. B. Pike appeared for the said Mann and demurred to the petition as insufficient.
A. Pond appeared for the petitioner creditor.
Judge Wallace dismissed the petition because the first averment was not stated “ on information and belieff but gave liberty to amend upon payment of twenty-five dollars costs.
The petitioner appealed to the circuit court by petition and asked to reverse said decision under section 2 of the act.
The case was argued at Utica, March term, 1876, by
A. Pond & E. F. Bullard, for petitioner, who cited , Bump (4th ed.) page 609, as to form of petition; Bump (8th ed.), page 927, 854; General Order No. 82.

Opinion:
E. Cowen, for Mann.