In re Mills

I think that Reilly, as receiver, is an assignee of the debt, and as such assignee may prove it. But, as it was assigned before proof, the proof must, and to make it receivable at all, be supported by the deposition required in general order No. 34. The deposition may in the first instance be ex parte, as in form No. 22. The proof was irregular because not supported by such deposition, and should on that ground be expunged.