Southern Pacific Milling Co. v. Superior Court

Insolvency—Jurisdiction of Superior Court—Petition—Amendment of Facts—Relation—Essentials of Original.—While a petition in insolvency in conformity with the statute is essential in conferring jurisdiction upon the superior court to adjudicate the insolvency of a debtor upon the petition of his creditors, yet, under the statute as now existing, such jurisdiction may be conferred by amendments to a defective petition, which by relation are taken as embraced in the original, such amendments, however, being confined to the facts stated in the petition, which presupposes, of course, that a petition signed by authority of the requisite number of creditors, properly verified, has been filed.

Id.—Signatures and Verification of Corporations.—Where the petitioning creditors were four corporations and one individual, the insolvent law being silent as to the character or class of officers authorized to affix the corporate name, the petition may be signed or verified by any one of the officers or agents of the corporation in its behalf.

Id.—Petition and Verification upon Face—Authority—Change After Signatures—Questions of Fact.—Where upon their face the petition and verification were sufficient in form and substance, assuming, without deciding, that anyone other than the insolvent may question, before adjudication, the authority of the parties to sign the petition for adjudication, or that such petition has been altered or changed after the signatures thereto were attached, the matter of such authority or the change in the petition still remain questions of fact for the superior court to hear and determine.

Id.—Amendments of Facts to Petition—Questions of Law.—The question what amendments are comprehended within the term amendment of facts, and the effect which should 'be given amendments, remains a question of law, after the ‘trial court has determined the facts.

Id.—Prohibition to Prevent Adjudication—Appeal from Judgment— Adequate Remedy at Law.—If the petitioner for a writ of prohibition to prevent any adjudication in insolvency is a party to the proceedings in insolvency, and is prejudiced by error of the trial court in connection with the judgment of adjudication, an adequate remedy at law exists by appeal from that judgment. Prohibition will not lie when such adequate remedy exists.

Id.—Supposition op Noninterest in Proceedings—Prohibition not Allowable.—If, upon the other hand, petitioner is not a proper party, who may so appeal, he is not interested in the proceeding in insolvency, and cannot be heard in an application to arrest the order of the court in a case to which he is a stranger.