Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Cal. 152

Pope v. Kirchner

California Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1888

California Supreme Court · decided 1888-09-28

<p>Insolvency—Published Notice of Adjudication — Misnomer. — Amere clerical error appearing upon the face of the published order of adjudication of insolvency in misnaming the insolvent debtor once, when his name appears correctly twice in the order, will not vitiate the publication.</p> <p>Id.—Affidavit of Service by Mail—Mistakes not Vitiating Discharge. — An affidavit of deposit in the post-office of a copy of the order of adjudication of insolvency, reciting the name of the insolvent in the commencement as follows, “Herman Kirchner, being duly sworn, says,” etc., but which is actually subscribed and sworn to by another person, is not vitiated by such recital, but the same may be rejected as surplusage, and the affidavit is to be considered as made by the person actually subscribing and swearing thereto. Nor will a mistake in designating the address of the creditors in the affidavit by reference to the schedule, which shows only their place of residence, vitiate the discharge, if the affidavit shows that the notice was addressed to each creditor at his place of business. A slight mistake in the spelling of a creditor’s name is of no importance.</p> <p>Id. — Effect of Discharge. — A discharge in insolvency is prima Jade evidence of the regularity of the proceedings, in the absence of a showing to the contrary.</p> <p>Id.—Sufficiency of Petition—Special Demurrer.—Upon a collateral attack upon a discharge in insolvency, a creditor cannot raise objections to the mere vagueness of the petition, or which amount only to a special demurrer thereto, there being no total absence of essential averments.</p> <p>Id. — Omission of Outlawed Debts. — When it is proven that debts due to the insolvent, which were omitted from the schedule, were in fact worthless and barred by limitation, their omission does not amount to fraud and false swearing, and is not ground for a collateral attack upon the discharge.</p>

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1973

6 state decisions

Relies on Ede v. Johnson · Bennett v. His Creditors

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thornton, J., concurring.

¶1The affidavit of the deposit in the post-office was sufficient. If it was Kirchner’s affidavit, it was sufficient, though not signed by him. In Ede v. Johnson, 15 Cal. 53, this was expressly held, and we think correctly held. If it was not Kirchner’s affidavit, Deputy County Clerk Gaskill’s affidavit was signed by him. It is immaterial that the affidavit commences “Herman Eirchner, being duly sworn,” etc. It is evident that this was a- clerical error or mistake, from the fact that the words just above quoted are followed by the statement “ that he is a deputy clerk of the county of Alameda.” It appears that Ryder was the clerk of the county, and Gaskill, the affiant, his deputy, in April, 1881, when the affidavit was made.

¶2We, cannot perceive any tenable grounds authorizing the ruling that the insolvency court did not have juris•diction. The facts appearing bring it within the ruling in Bennett v. His Creditors, 22 Cal. 38, which is applicable here.

¶3On the foregoing grounds, I concur in the judgment.

/77/cal/152 · .json · Public domain