The fact that the schedule of debts uses the initial of the creditor, instead of his Christian name,1 or that it refers to the debt as an open account, instead of referring to it as a judgment in which such open account was merged,2 or that there is a slight discrepancy between the amount set forth in the schedule and the amount actually due,3 does not amount to an omission of the debt from the schedule.

9 Alabama. Davis v. Findley, -Ala. -, 78 So. 869.

Kansas. Zimmerman v. Ketchum, 66 Kan. 98, 71 Pac. 264; Inge v. Still-well, 88 Kan. 33, 42 L. R. A (N.S.) 1003, 127 Pac. 527.

Kentucky. Jones v. Walter, 115 Ky. 556, 74 S. W. 249; Dycus v. Brown, 135 Ky. 140, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 190, 121 S. W. 1010.

Ohio. Knapp v. Harold, 1 Ohio C. C. (N.S.) 469, 15 Ohio C. D. 213.

10 Davis v. Findley, - Ala. -, 78 So. 869.

11 Fider v. Mannheim, 78 Minn. 309, 81 N. W. 2.

12Andrews v. Nix, 246 U. S. 273, 62 L. ed. 711 [affirming, 88 N. J. L. 718, 96 Atl. 1102].

13 Sloan v. Grollman, 113 Md. 192, 77 Atl. 577; Smith v. Hill 232 Mass. 188, 2 A. L. R. 1667, 122 N. E. 310; Wineman v. Fisher, 135 Mich. 604, 98 N. W. 404; Caimenson v. Moudry, 137 Minn. 123, 162 N. W. 1076.

See Sec. 3165.

1 Kreitlein v. Ferger, 238 U. S. 21, 59 L. ed. 1184; Gatliff v. Mackey (Ky.), 104 S. W. 379.

Misspelling the name of the debtor,4 or giving his address as "unknown" when in fact it is known,5 or giving his address as in a city in which he does not live,6 or giving his street and number but omitting the city of his residence,7 have been held equivalent to omitting the claim from the schedule.