
    Bergh & Arcularius v. Poupard & Beaubien.
    Where a judgment creditor’s bill is verified under the HOlhrule, by the complainant’s agent, who is not also Solicitor of the complainant, the jurat should state the person verifying to be the agent of the complainant; but where it is verified by the oath of the complainant’s Solicitor, the Court will take notice of that fact from the records and proceedings in the cause.
    This was a motion for the appointment of a Receiver on a judgment creditor’s bill. The motion was opposed, on the ground that the jurat did not state the person verifying the bill, to be the agent, or attorney of the complainants.
    
      jDouglass Sf Walker, for the complainants.
    
      Van Dyke Sf Harrington, for the defendants.
   The Chancellor.

The 110th rule of the Court requires bills of this description to be verified by the oath of thg complainant, or in case of his absence from the State, or other sufficient cause shown, by the oath of his agent or Attorney. Where the bill is verified by the complainant’s agent, who is not also the Solicitor of the complainant, the jurat should state the person verifying to be the agent of the complainant; but where, as in the present case, it is verified by the oath of the complainant’s solicitor, the Court will take notice of that fact from the record and proceedings in the cause.

The motion must be granted.  