As pointed out by the referee, the practice of the petitioners was irregular, first, in omitting to give the required notice to the members of the co-partnership who did not .join in the petition; and, second, in attempting to cure the defect in the adjudication by a subsequent unverified consent, qualified as to its terms, and signed only by the attorneys for the non joining members. There seems to be no warrant for this practice. The court does not feel called upon to exert its ingenuity to untangle the snarl in which the petitioners’ proceedings are involved, especially when a perfectly simple remedy is open to them. It is like attempting to repair a broken-down machine with the chance that it may continue a rickety and precarious existence when a new machine may be had for less price than it will cost to patch up the old one.
Even if the infirmities of the adjudication can be temporarily cured they are liable to reappear in other tribunals, to vex the court, and, perhaps, to result- in causing the discharges which may be hereafter granted to be declared invalid. Assuming that a creditor is in a position to raise the objection, in limine, that á partnership petition cannot be filed in the circumstances shown, it will be time enough to consider the question when proper papers are before the court.
The adjudication is vacated, with leave to the petitioners to take such further steps as they may be advised. Should the petitioners -so elect, and the court is under the impression that such will be their wisest course, they may take an order dismissing the petition without prejudice to their right to file a new one by all the firm members.