ALLEN V. THOMPSON. 117 �lu Bankruptcy. �Petition to set aside and annul a certificate of discharge filed by a crediter against the bankrupt, to which he bas demurred. The pe- titioners allege that a final discharge was granted on the ninth day of June, 1881, but that the register's certificate of conformity was premature, because of a failure to comply with certain prerequisites required by law in the course of the proceedings. The grounds alleged for setting aside the discharge are as f ollows : �(1) That Thompson was net a resident or citizen of this district, and the court had not juriadiction. (2) That he has never flled schedules of his indi- vidual liabilities and individual assets, as required by Kev. St. § 5014 et seq. (3) That petitioners, as individiial creditors of Thompson, were never served with any notice, as required by Bev. St. § 5019, and that this failure to flle schedules of his individual creditors and assets makes the order of adjudica- tion illegal as to his individual debts. (4) That no notice was given or publi- cation made to the creditors who had proved their debts of Thompson's appli- cation for discharge, as required by Kev. St. § 5109, and that petitioners having proved were entitled to notice, and had uone of the application for discharge. (5) That his assets did not pay the required per centum, nor did he have the required assent �The demurrer takes objection on the following grounds : �(1) The petition does not allege the discharge was fraudulently obtained. (2) The particular grounds required by Rev. St. § 5110, for withholding a dis- charge, are not specified.. (3) No one of the particular grounds for annulling a discharge, required by Eev. St. § 5120, is specified. (4) It is not alleged that the petitioners did not have full knowledge of the acts alleged for avoid- ing the discharge before the same was granted. (5) The first specification does not aver that the firm of Lonsdale & Thompson, by which the petition was filed, did not do business within six months next preceding the bank- ruptcy petition in this district. (6) The second specification does not aver any ground for avoiding a discharge. (7) The third specification does not aver that the notice prescribed by the court under section 5019 was not given, nor that the marshal did not mail to them the notice required to be given, and does not show any ground for avoiding a discharge. (8) The fourth specification sets forth no ground known to the law for avoiding a discharge. (9) The flfth specification sets forth no ground for avoiding the discharge. �George W. Gordon, for the creditors. �Gantt e Patterson, for the bankrupt. �Hammond, D. J. The demurrer makes the mistake of treating this petition as one filed under section 5120 of the Revised Statutes, being section 34 of the original act. If it is to be tested by the require- mentd of that section the demurrer is well taken; but it is not. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the court to correct a decree ��� �
