X., , -\, 
 
 » 
 
 150B 
 
 M?7 
 
 w- 
 
 .^.''■'.^l 
 
 v^ 
 
 I? 
 
 r% 
 
 i\-*--^A, -'"^ 
 
 '.» - ^. 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 rrr 
 
 1<<<\ 
 
 i*:s?r*i 
 
 ^^p-.^v 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 
Cornell University Law Library. 
 
l^" — ~~~—*\ 
 
 REPORT 0£^cxlr^U«^ 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 national jlssodatloti of 
 Refmcs in Bankruptcp 
 
 CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898. 
 
 MARCH, 190Q5 
 
 BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 Made in the Complete Art-Prjnting Works of 
 
 THE MATTHEWS-NORTHRUP CO. 
 
 1900. 
 

 Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018937395 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 National Association of 
 Referees in Bankruptcy 
 
 CONCERNING PROPOSED AMEND- 
 MENTS TO THE 
 
 Bankruptcy Act oK/1808, 
 
 WITH „ , _, 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING TABULATION OF CASES DECIDEb UNDER THE LAW, ARRANGED 
 BY SECTION, SUBSECTION AND SUBDIVISION. 
 
 IVtAROH, 1900. 
 
TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 
 REFEREES IN BANKRUPTCY: 
 
 At a convention of Referees in Bankruptcy, held at Chicago in July last, the 
 undersigned were appointed an Executive Committee to supervise the work of sev- 
 eral standing committees, to gather in reports and recommendations, and, in gen- 
 eral, to represent the Association until the next convention, in all matters intended 
 to accomplish the objects of the Association. At the same convention, the fol- 
 lowing officers and standing committees were elected or appointed : 
 
 President: Charles A. Hawley, Seneca Falls, N. Y. 
 
 Vice- P residents : James M. Olmstead, Boston, Mass.; Charles Turner, Salt 
 Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Secretary and Treasurer: William D. Fullerton, Ottawa, 111. 
 
 Committee on Orders, Rules and Forms : Referees Harlow P. Davock, Detroit, 
 Mich. ; N. W. Trimble, Birmingham, Ala. ; Charles A. Hawley, Seneca Palls, N. Y. 
 
 Committee on Involuntary Bankruptcy : Referees Peter B. Olney, New York, 
 N. Y. ; Joseph Mason, Philadelphia, Pa.; Harold Remington, Cleveland, 0. 
 
 Committee on Liens, Preferences and Exemptions : Referees Shelby Myrick, 
 Savannah, Ga. ; Thos. B. Wall, Wichita, Kas.; Wm. D. Stephens, Los Angeles, 
 Cal. 
 
 Committee on Officers : Referees D. Lloyd Jones, Milwaukee, Wis. ; Fred L. 
 Kahle, Franklin, Pa., Walter D. Coles, St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Committee on Administration of Estates : Referees A. Rabb, Indianapolis, 
 Ind.; C. A. Van Wormer, Scranton, Pa.; Hazen R. Sawyer, Keokuk, la. 
 
 Committee on Discharges and Offenses: Referees Roswell R. Moss, Elmira, 
 N. Y.; 0. A. Sperry, Washington C. H., 0.; W. T. Wickham, Richmond, Va. 
 
 Shortly thereafter, we began a investigation of the operation of the Bankruptcy 
 Law, by correspondence with the officers, the standing committees, members of 
 the Association at large, and other persons qualified by experience to give sugges- 
 tions. Early in the present year, that investigation was extended and systematized 
 by a series of blanks, entitled in the names of the various committees. These 
 blanks, which were sent to every member of the Association, were identical, 
 except in the questions asked. A copy of the blanks, omitting identical matter, 
 follows : 
 
 " To Esq., 
 
 Referee for 
 
 Number of cases to February 1, 1900. 
 
 Please answer the following questions and return this blank, by an early mail, 
 to the undersigned, at 319 Main Street, Buffalo, N. Y. Kindly observe the 
 following 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 1, Fill in your name, jurisdiction by county and federal judicial district, and 
 the number of cases which have been referred to you. 
 3, Answer the questions printed in italics, if possible. 
 
 3, Answer the other questions, if you desire. 
 
 4, Make your answers brief, and refer, if possible, to reported cases (byname, 
 volume and page) bearing on the point discussed. 
 
 .5, Answer questions by number, without restating them. 
 
 6, Use the typewriter. 
 
 7, Mucilage to this sheet any additional sheets which may be necessary, but do 
 not attach the report intended for this committee to any other committee's report. 
 
BLANK FOE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 QUESTIONS : 
 
 1, In which courts, State or Federal, should controversies between the trustee 
 and adverse claimants be determined? {Sec. 2S.) Frame an amendment which will 
 accomplish what you suggest. Give your reasons. 
 
 2, Should the corporations which may become involuntary bankrupts (Sec. 4-b) 
 be permitted to file a voluntary petition as well ? Why ? If so, under what 
 restrictions ? 
 
 3, Should the definition of "insolvency" [Sec. 1-a IB) be modified? If so, 
 how? 
 
 4, Should the right to file a petition in forma pauperis.be abolished {Sec. 61)? 
 
 . 5, What changes, if any, should be made in Sec. 5, controlling on partnership 
 bankruptcies ? 
 
 6, What changes would you suggest to the end that a wife may always be a com- 
 petent witness as to transactions with her husband (Sec. 21); and as to the bank- 
 rupt's right to refuse to answer, on the ground that his testimony might tend to 
 incriminate him (Sec. 7-a 9) ? 
 
 7, Have you any suggestions for needed amendments, not covered by questions 
 on this or the other committee blanks ? If so, state the same. 
 
 8, Give ten particulars, referring to section and sub-section, in which the pres- 
 ent law has been most conspicuously successful. 
 
 9, Give ten particulars, referring to section and sub-section, in which the pres- 
 ent law most requires amendment. 
 
 ADMINISTEATION OP ESTATES. 
 
 1, Should Sec. 58, controlling on notices to creditors, be amended ? If so, state 
 in what sub-clauses, and why. 
 
 2, What changes, if any, should be made in Sec. 63, which defines ivhat debts 
 are provable ? 
 
 3, What changes, if any, would you suggest relative to the method of proving and 
 allowing claims? (Sec. 57.) 
 
 4, Should Sec. 65, controlling on the declaration and payment of dividends, be 
 amended ? If so, how ? 
 
 5, Should referees be given a larger discretion as to sales of property, advertis- 
 ing and notifying the creditors of same, etc.? If so, how ? Sees. 70-b, 58-a {4), etc. 
 
 6, What amendments to the sections relating to the administration of estates in 
 bankruptcy would you suggest, in addition to those stated above ? 
 
 OEFICEES. 
 
 1, What, if any, additional powers should be given to the Referee, the Trustee, 
 the Receiver and the Marshal ? 
 
 2, What changes, if any, should be made in the compensation and duties of the 
 Clerk and Trustees ? Answer fully and at large, discussing particularly the much 
 needed increase in the compensation of the trustee, and suggest what t&e compen- 
 sation should be. 
 
 3, Should not the compensation of the Eeceiver and the Appraisers be fixed by 
 the law ; and, if so, what should be the amount paid to each ? 
 
 4, Have you any other suggestions relative to the sections of the law pertaining 
 to oCacers and their compensation ? {By resolution of the Convention held at 
 Chicago in July, the Association will make no recommendations as to the compen- 
 satioti of the Referee.) 
 
 INVOLUNTAEY BANKEUPTCY. 
 
 1, Should there be any additional acts of bankruptcy ? (Sec. 3-a.) If so, phrase 
 them. 
 
 2, Should "intent to prefer "or the "effect" of the act (Sec. 60-a) be the chief 
 element of proof when the act of bankruptcy is that defined in Sec. 3-a (2) ? 
 
3, What changes, if any, should be made in the number of creditors who may 
 file petitions (Sec. 59); in the aggregate of their claims (Sec. 59); in the persons 
 or corporations against whom a petition may be filed (Sec. 4-b); or in the amount 
 of debts owing (Sec. 4-b)? 
 
 4, What changes in procedure are desirable, especially — 
 
 (a) as to service of subpcana on absentee bankrupt ; 
 {b) as to appearance, answer-and jury trials ; 
 
 (c) as to filing schedules, notices to creditors and care of property 
 ad interim ? 
 
 LIENS, PKEFEEENCES AND EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 1, Which should he retained, Sec. 67-c or Sec. 67-ff And, if the latter, should 
 it apply specifically to voluntary as well as involuntary cases ? 
 
 2, Should the four months' period within which liens, etc., are void, be made 
 longer or shorter ? 
 
 3, What changes, if any, should be made in Sec. 60-a and b, lohich defines 
 preferences ? 
 
 4, Suggest any changes which would make the law more uniform as to 
 exemptions? {Sec. 6.) 
 
 6, Have you any other suggestions relative to the sections of the law controll- 
 ing on liens, preferences and exemptions ? 
 
 DISCHAEGES AND OFFENSES. 
 
 1, Discuss the advisability of such additional objections to a discharge {Sec. 
 14-i) as 
 
 {a) giving a preference ; 
 
 {b) obtaining motiey or credit on fraudulent represetitations ; 
 
 (c) previous discharge in bankruptcy within {9) years j ■ 
 
 (d) inability to account satisfactorily for losses j 
 
 (e) concealing or attempting to conceal property, with intent to defraud 
 
 creditors j 
 (/) riotous or extravagant living ; 
 ( g) losses due to gambling ; 
 (h) the elimination of " with fraudulent intent to conceal his true 
 
 financial condition," or "in contemplation of bankruptcy," or 
 
 both, from the second objection to discharge found in the present 
 
 Sec. 14-b. 
 {i) any other additional objections which in your judgment would 
 
 meet existing criticisms of this portion of the law. 
 
 2, Suggest any desirable changes in Sec. 17, defining the debts which are not 
 affected by a discharge. 
 
 3, What changes, if any, should be made in Sec. 29, controlling on offenses and 
 penalties f 
 
 OEDERS, EULES AND FOEMS. 
 
 1, Which of the General Orders should be abolished? And why? 
 
 2, Which of the General Orders should be amended? And why '■! 
 
 3, What new General Orders do you suggest ? 
 
 4, Which of the forms should be abolished? And why f 
 
 5, Which of the forms should be amended? And how ? > 
 
 6, What new forms do you suggest ? 
 
 7, Attach hereto any forms used in your jurisdiction, not provided for in the 
 "Forms of Bankruptcy" prescribed by the Supreme Court. 
 
 These questions were intended to cover all of the sections of the law which 
 have been criticised. We did not, however, intend thereby to indicate that, iu our 
 
opinion, a general revision was desirable at this time. It is probably not desirable, 
 even were it possible. An eighteen months' experience with a law operative 
 throughout the nation, and thus affecting not only State statutes but local customs 
 previously c&ntrolling on the collection of debts, is hardly a proper test either of 
 tlie efficacy of the law as a whole or of the value of debatable features. At the 
 same time, it was thought that, from the mass of opinion elicited by the numer- 
 ous questions, it would be easily possible to determine what changes are generally 
 demanded at this time. This expectation has been realized. 
 
 A large number of the referees who are members of the Association have re- 
 plied to the questions ; answers having been received from thirty or more States 
 and Territories, and from referees of all degrees of experience and environment. 
 Indeed, the investigation, besides covering all parts of the country and thus juris- 
 dictions of Avidely varying importance and diverse local laws and practice, probably 
 reiiects the experience of over one-half of the bankruptcy cases referred under the 
 present law. In some instances, categorical answers were given; in others, elabo- 
 rate essays on the operation of the law were returned. All have been analyzed 
 and abridged by this committee, with the result that it is now possible to formulate 
 some generalizations which should be of value both to the referees and the country. 
 
 I. 
 
 Revision of Orders, Rules and Forms. 
 
 There is a wide-spread demand for a revision of the (leneral Orders' in Bank- 
 ruptcy, with the accompanying Forms. They were promulgated in December, 
 ItSOS, before the law had been in operation sis months, and, in the nature of things, 
 are largely copies of similar orders and forms used under the Law of 1867. They 
 do not always agree with the law, or with each other ; and, while it has been possible 
 to use most of them as modified and supplemented by district court and referees' 
 rules and forms, a complete and careful revision is demanded both by the bar and 
 by the referees. This, however, should, in our judgment, be postponed until any 
 amendments to the law, which shall approve themselves to Congress, can be en- 
 acted. We have received many suggestions looking to changes, most of them 
 admirable, but, for the reason indicated, make no report at this time. When the 
 proper amendments shall be agreed on, we will report further on this branch of the 
 subject. 
 
 II. 
 
 Good Features and Features Criticised. 
 
 The unanimity of opinion touching good features and needed amendments is 
 notable. Though from officers widely scattered throughout the country, each 
 affected by local prejudices, and with an experience varying from three cases in 
 small country counties to over one thousand cases in Chicago, the recommendations 
 hereinafter made have been voiced by a majority so emphatic as to leave no doubt 
 in our minds concerning the features of the law which have stood the test of ex- 
 ]ierience and those which should be changed. Thus, two of the questions asked 
 were : 
 
 " Give ten particulars, referring to section and subsection, in which the pres- 
 ent law has been most conspicuously successful." 
 
 " Give ten particulars, referring to section and subsection, in which the pres- 
 ent law most requires amendment." 
 
The answers to these questions permit us to submit to your consideration the 
 following results : 
 
 The ten features of the law which seemed most to approve themselves to the 
 referees are these : 
 
 1, The law (§60-a and b, §67-c, e and t, and §70-e) practically prevents pref- 
 erences, not merely those of a voluntary nature to wives and relatives, but also 
 those which may be merely suffered for the benefit of friendly local banks and 
 large mercantile houses. 
 
 2, The old-time doctrine, which made "intent" the chief and most difficult 
 element of proof where preferences were alleged, has given place to the more 
 rational doctrine of " effect of the act" (§00-a, §67-c (1) ). 
 
 3, The referees are numerous and easily accessible (§37 and §3i (2) ). 
 
 ■l. The referees are, in effect, local courts of bankruptcy, their powers, except 
 as to adjudications, discharges and compositions, thanks to wise district rules, 
 being in practice the same as those of the district Judges, and, even in the absence 
 of such rules, much more extensive than the powers of the registers under the 
 former law. (See §38 (4) and §39, when read with §3 (15) as interpreted by 
 §l-a (7).) 
 
 5, Estates in bankruptcy are administered more cheaply aud more quickly than 
 insolvent estates under State laws. (§§40, 48, 55-a, 62 and 65.) Many referees, 
 in fact, most of them, call attention to the qualifying fact that, in going to the 
 extreme of speed and cheapness, efficiency has been sacrificed and a wise discretion 
 eliminated. We later recommend certain changes, which, while recognizing the 
 principle that expenses of administration should be kept small, yet will at least 
 increase efficiency. 
 
 C, Creditors control the choice of trustees, as well as all ordinary proceedings 
 in the administration of estates. (§55-b, c, d, and e, §56 and §58-a.) Here, also, 
 the extreme has been reached, and a reasonable discretion eliminated. But the 
 principle that insolvent estates should be managed by those to whom they belong 
 — the creditors — has been asserted and maintained as never before. 
 
 7, Claims are easily and cheaply proven and dividends paid without appreciable 
 expense (§57, §63, §64, §68, §26 and §27). The intervention of an attorney is, in 
 ordinary cases, unnecessary. 
 
 8, Composition agreements are in control of a majority in number and amount 
 of the creditors. (§12 and §13.) Neither a single large creditor nor a combina- 
 tion of small creditors can, as a rule, prevent a proper settlement ; the latter 
 usually at a pro rata larger than would be paid in case of complete liquidation. 
 This has already resulted in the rehabilitation of many a going business, thus sav- 
 ing valuable good wills and putting an end to the in ierrorem tactics of, and 
 resultant secret preferences to, single creditors under the State laws. 
 
 9, The new definition of insolvency (§l-a (15)), while open to objection in that 
 it necessitates expert testimony, and for that reason criticised by some, is more iu 
 accord with American ideas than was the old-time definition, and seems quite gen- 
 erally approved. 
 
 10, As a whole, that the law has reduced litigation between debtor and creditor 
 by half, thus, as one referee puts it, " reducing lawyers' and sheriffs' fees into 
 creditors' dividends." 
 
 In general, that it has emancipated thousands of men and women from long- 
 standing slavery to their creditors, a slavery which, under State laws, it was not 
 in their power to end, and which was as valueless to the one as it was hopeless to 
 the other. 
 
8 
 
 It should, perhaps, be added that our investigation has been directed toward 
 defects, not good features. For that reason, we shall hereafter confine this report 
 to the former. The opinion of the referees, like that of the country, is that the 
 present law is not only the most humane in our history, but that, as a statute 
 controlling the administration of assets, it is the cheapest, the most workable, 
 and the most equitable. 
 
 The ten features of the law most criticised are the following. We enlarge 
 upon them later : 
 
 1, That it is now practically impossible to prevent a discharge, short of proving 
 perjury (§14-b and §39-b). 
 
 2, That the compensation of trustees is so small as to jeopardize the proper 
 administration of estates (§48). 
 
 3, That the law is not uniform (a) in discriminating between natural and arti- 
 ficial persons (§4:-a); (b) in discriminating between certain classes of natural per- 
 sons (§4-b) ; (c) in giving force to the exemption laws of the various States (§G). 
 
 4, That, under existing decisions, it is impossible to determine the proper forum 
 for suits by or against the trustee (§33-a and b, and §2 (7) ). 
 
 5, That petitions in forma pauperis (§51-a (2)), in effect, give a debtor the 
 right to proceed as a poor person at his own instance and without the consent of 
 the court, and that this privilege has therefore been much abused. 
 
 6, That §67-c and §67-f on liens cannot be reconciled and that there is at pres- 
 ent a wide conflict of decision as to whether the latter refers to voluntary bank- 
 ruptcy, as well as involuntary (compare §l-a (1) ). 
 
 7, That the wife of the bankrupt is not a compellable witness in all States 
 (§21-a), and that §7-a (9) is not so phrased as to give a bankrupt the equivalent of 
 bis constitutional privilege. 
 
 8, That referees have no discretion as to time and manner of giving notices (§58) 
 and concerning sales of property (§47 -a (2), §58-a (4), §70-b). 
 
 i). That alimony and similar obligations in many jurisdictions have been held 
 dischargeable debts (§17 (2) ). 
 
 10, That proceedings in involuntary cases are unnecessarily delayed (a) by 
 making it possible to prevent the joinder of issue until twenty-five days after the 
 creditors have filed their petition (§18-a and b); (b) by giving jurisdiction only 
 after a six weeks' publication, in case the bankrupt absconds (§18-a); (c) by giving 
 the right to demand a jury trial, without provision for the pay of the jury (§19), 
 thus placing in the hands of the bankrupt's attorney the power to delay proceed- 
 ings almost indefinitely in districts where the court has few stated terms at which 
 the issue can be moved. 
 
 III. 
 
 Miscellaneous Suggestions. 
 
 The Committee is also able, from the multiplicity of answers received, to report 
 to the Association a large number of suggestions. We do not undertake to record 
 all that have come in, nor have we felt that many should be incorporated in the 
 bill which we have drawn. At the same time, that such suggestions may not be 
 entirely lost, we state them here, under the heads of their committees, for con- 
 sideration by the Association as a body when it shall meet. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON OPFICEES. 
 
 1. ADDITIONAL POWEKS : 
 
 a. Of llie Referee : It is suggested that referees be given the following 
 additional powers : (1) to grant discharges ; (2) to confirm compositions ; (3) to 
 
9 
 
 appoint a marshal or a receiver intermediate the adjudication in bankruptcy and 
 the first meeting of creditors; (4) to hear and determine all suits brought by or 
 against the trustee ; (5) to make adjudications when the judge is sick or incapaci- 
 tated, as well as when he is without the District. Suggestions one and two, how- 
 ever, would be radical additions to the powers of the referee ; suggestion three is 
 already met by rules in many districts, giving the referee that power, and can be 
 accomplished by rules as the law now stands ; suggestion four would necessitate 
 the creation of a regular court, with a jury and other concomitants; while sug- 
 gestion five, though of value, would care a defect of comparatively little 
 importance. 
 
 It is also suggested that the referees be given power, (1) to make adjudications 
 in all voluntary cases ; (2) to grant temporary restraining orders and order that 
 writs of injunction issue ; (3) to punish for contempt ; (4) to order sales of all 
 property, whether perishable or not, without notice. There is no valid reason 
 why a referee should not always make adjudications in voluntary cases, especially 
 in cities in which there is a clerk's office, but of which the judge is not a resident. 
 The time lost in sending papers back and forth for the mere formal act of adjudi- 
 cation is sometim'es very important. We do not feel, however, that the change is 
 sufficiently essential to warrant us in recommending it at this time. The power 
 to grant restraining orders has been by rule given referees in many districts. 
 That this is possible follows from §38-a (4) and §3 (15) as interpreted by §l-a (7); 
 indeed, it is doubtful whether the Supreme Court could limit such power, as it has 
 attempted to do by General Order XII. (3). The power to punish for contempt 
 would be valuable, though, in effect, it exists to-day, as cases are rare in which the 
 judge has refused to punish for contempt on a proper certification from the ref- 
 eree (§41-b). At the same time, both it and the two additional powers just men- 
 tioned should await the adoption of the more necessary amendments suggested 
 later. 
 
 b. Of the Trustee : It is suggested that the trustees be authorized to take 
 depositions and examine the bankrupt and other witnesses ; this, to facilitate 
 examinations, which, owing to the multiplicity of cases in important jurisdictions, 
 are sometimes limited if necessarily conducted by the referee. We think, how- 
 ever, that this detail matter can be postponed until Congress shall order a general 
 revision of the law. 
 
 3. COMPENSATION OF OFFICEES. 
 
 a. Of the Referee : By resolution adopted at the Convention held at Chicago, 
 last July, this subject was excluded from our investigation and, therefore, from 
 our recomme»dations. The members of the Association are, of course, at liberty 
 to express their individual views on this subject to Congress. As a body, how- 
 ever, neither this Committee nor the Association will do so. 
 
 b. Of the Trustee: Our recommendations on this subject will be found later. 
 
 c. Of the Clerk: We recommend no change in the compensation of this 
 officer. 
 
 d. Of the Receiver : Much difficulty has been experienced in fixing the fees of 
 the receiver. He usually serves from two to three weeks. He rarely does more 
 than preserve the estate ; yet, the law being silent as to his fees, he at times asks 
 for compensation greater than can be allowed the trustee for months of work in 
 converting the property into money and disbursing it in payment of expenses and 
 dividends. For these reasons, the suggestion has been made that the compensation 
 of the receiver be fixed. At the same time, i.t is difficult to establish any arbitrary 
 rate, the kind and amount of service varying in e'very case. Perhaps a per diem 
 Typuld be the iw^si method. Even this would prove unfair in some cases, The 
 
10 
 
 matter now rests in a sound discretion, and, though its exercise is annoying to 
 referees and judges, they can be trusted to keep the fees within reason and yet to 
 compensate sufficiently for services rendered, on a per diem basis, perhaps, better 
 than would any rigid rate operative throughout the country. 
 
 e. Of the Appraisers : Their pay differs materially in different parts of the 
 country. In the Southern District of New York, appraisers whose services are 
 merely nominal are by rule allowed one dollar a day ; in other districts, from two 
 dollars to three dollars a day. When experts have been required, allowances of as 
 high as twenty dollars a day have been made. In still other cases, where goodly 
 sums "have been paid to appraisers, owing to shrinkages in estates when finally 
 sold, the appraisers' fees have all but exhausted the assets. Under these circum- 
 stances, it is the opinion of a large majority of the referees that this matter, 
 troublesome in every phase, be left as it is, to discretion. 
 
 3. MISOBLLAKEOUS SUGGESTION'S. 
 
 (a) That §44 be amended so that there can be two trustees, instead of one or 
 three ; (b) that §44 and §38 be so amended that the referee may, on his taking 
 jurisdiction of the case, appoint a trustee, this trustee at once to go into possession 
 of the property, such appointee, however, to be subject to removal on the vote of 
 the creditors at the first meeting. The first of these suggestions we consider unim- 
 portant, though, in rare cases, possibly of value. The second, though it would 
 provide for the custody of property during a period in which the estate is apt to 
 suffer because not in charge of a caretaker, yet, in compelling the creditors, in 
 effect, to turn out of office the choice of the referee would be an innovation which 
 is against principle and would prove awkward in practice. (c) That §70 be 
 amended by reducing the number of appraisers from three to two, or, what is 
 better, by so amending the section that the appointment of appraisers shall always 
 be discretionary. This latter should sometime be done, but we do not consider it 
 of sufficient importance at this time. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTEATION OP ESTATES. 
 
 1, Notices to Creditors : Nearly every referee complains of the want of discre- 
 tion concerning notices to creditors which results from the rigid phrasing of §58. 
 The suggestion is made that this section be amended so that, after the notice of 
 the first meeting, no notice, except of application for discharge, be given to a 
 creditor who does not appear or prove a debt within a limited period, unless other- 
 wise ordered by the judge or referee. The suggestion is also made that notices of 
 examinations (§58 (1)) ; of proposed sales (§58 (4)) ; of the declaration and time 
 of payment of dividends (§58 (5)) and of the proposed compromises of controver- 
 sies (§58 (7)) be always discretionary. No change in practice is urged by the ref- 
 erees with greater unanimity than this. The notices of the first meeting always 
 provide for an examination of the bankrupt. Subsequent examinations are usually 
 at the instance of a single creditor, who wishes to learn about some particular 
 fact. Why should he be put to the annoyance of summoning a hundred or more 
 creditors on a ten-day notice, for this purpose ? 
 
 The practice on notices of sales seems to differ in every district. Some notices 
 are that " sales will take place ; " others, " that sales are proposed ; " others, that 
 "proposed sales will take place." Some referees send notice of the proposed sale, 
 that creditors may determine whether a sale shall be ordered, and if it is, follow it 
 up with a notice of sale, thus consuming a month in doing what the trustee, sub- 
 ject to confirmation by the referee, can usually be relied on to do as well aa the 
 creditors pould, and at once. At times, sales should he ordered immediately. ^\ 
 
11 
 
 other times, even a five days' delay is apt to cause serious loss. In some cases, 
 offers which have been made for property have been withdrawn before the creditors 
 could be brought in on the usual notice, and the property later sold at auction to 
 the same bidder at a much reduced figure. Much the same is true of the notice of 
 the declaration and time of payment of dividends. Some referees give notice 
 that a dividend will be declared, follow it up by a notice that a dividend will be 
 paid, and, after the second meeting only, pay the dividend. Others cut the knot, 
 by calling a meeting for the purpose of declaring and paying dividends and, when 
 there is to be but one dividend, settle the estates, all on one notice and at one time. 
 There is more reason for a notice of the declaration and time of payment of divi- 
 dends than for the other notices here discussed, especially in cases where, up to 
 that time, the creditors have not been informed whether there will be any assets, 
 and therefore may not have thought it worth while to prove their claims. At the 
 same time, this matter, in our judgment, should be left to the discretion of the 
 referees. Notices of the proposed settlement of a controversy are, we find, rarely 
 given, in spite of the. law, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred would be 
 sheer nonsense, the creditors merely ratifying what the trustee suggests. Besides, 
 the ten-day delay is sometimes fatal to a compromise, which must often be either 
 accepted or declined at once. Such notices should unquestionably be left to dis- 
 cretion. The trustee is under heavy bonds and the referee is a judicial officer. 
 Either can be reached if he is faithless to his trust. 
 
 At the same time, though these suggestions are among those upon which there 
 is the greatest unanimity, the change would be largely for the benefit of the ref- 
 erees, and this Committee considers that the same should stand aside for changes 
 which are more important and of more general value. 
 
 2, Sales : No section of the law has proven more exasperating to the officers 
 charged with its administration than the section controlling on sales. We have 
 already spoken of the requirement that notice be given. At the same time. 
 General Order XVIII. (2) seems to permit private sales without notice, and, in 
 fact, to make all sales discretionary, though this power may be limited by implica- 
 tion by General Order XVIII. (3). On the otiier hand, the power of the Supreme 
 Court to prescribe this rule may be doubted in the light of §58-a (4), though §70-b 
 read in connection with §2 (7) and §47-a (3), may have been deemed a limitation 
 on the general rule requiring notices. The whole matter of sales should, in the 
 judgment of this Committee, be left discretionary ; or, at least, it should be 
 possible to dispose of personal property at private sale, without notice. At the 
 same time, a broad construction of §TO-b as interpreted by General Order XVIII. 
 (3) will probably answer for a time. We, therefore, make no recommendation 
 now. 
 
 3, Proofs of Belt ; Payment of Dividends, etc. : Many suggestions are made 
 touching the manner of proving debts. For instance : (a) It is suggested that 
 all debts remain on file ten days before being allowed; (b) that. the time within 
 which they can be filed for allowance be reduced from one year to sixty days ; 
 (c) that all objections to claims be presented in writing, duly verified ; and (d) 
 that the referee be given the right to vote on all claims duly allowed, which are 
 no't represented in person or by attorney before him. Of these suggestions, the 
 first and third can be covered by rules. The second, we do not consider important 
 at this time, and the fourth would confer on the referees a privilege which would 
 not only be against principle, but would prove annoying in practice. It is also 
 suggested (e) that creditors be required to so frame their proofs of debt that the 
 latter will show on their face the items of the account, if any, the respective dates 
 of each item of debit and credit, and, if secured, the date of the delivery of the 
 security, or, if the latter be filed or recorded, the date thereof, all in addition to 
 
12 
 
 the statements now required in proofs of debt, (§5?-a and b). This, howevei*, call 
 be easily provided for when the General Orders shall be revised. 
 
 It is also suggested (f) that §63, declaring what debts are provable, be amended 
 so as to determine the mooted question of the provability of continuing contracts, 
 like unexpired leases, for employment by the year, etc., and liabilities growing out 
 of the domestic relations, such as accrued alimony, etc. These matters, however, 
 are already quite well settled by the courts. See Appendix, under §63-b. 
 
 The suggestions are also made that a wider discretion be given referees as to 
 time and amount in declaring and paying dividends (§65-b), and that the meaning 
 of the word " dividends " as fixing the amount of the commissions paid the referee 
 and the trustee be determined by statute, to clear up the existing confusion ; com- 
 pare In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N., 812, and In re Fort Wayne Elec. Corp., H Fed., 109, 
 with In re Barter, 97 Fed., 5^7. The first does not seem of sufficient importance 
 to warrant an amendment at this time. The second will be of no importance 
 if commissions are paid on moneys received and paid out, as we hereinafter 
 recommend. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY. 
 
 1, Additmial Acts of Bankruptcy : The referees are practically unanimous 
 that the acts of bankruptcy be left as they are, with a single change made 
 necessary by our subsequent recommendations touching corporations. Only one 
 suggests that §3-a (3) be dropped out ; while another suggests that this subdivision 
 be amended so as to read, "either suffered or permitted, while insolvent, any 
 creditor to obtain a preference through legal proceedings, and not having, at least 
 five days before the date fixed for the sale or final disposition of any property 
 affected Ijy such preference, vacated or discharged such preference." The deci- 
 sions, however, seem to give this meaning to §3-a (3) already. See Appendix, under 
 §3-a (3). 
 
 3, Procedure: With scarcely an exception, every referee advises that §59, 
 which fixes the number of creditors who may file a petition, the number of 
 creditors an alleged bankrupt must have, the amount of claims which the peti- 
 tioning creditors must hold, and the aggregate of the debts which the alleged 
 debtor must owe, be left as it is now. 
 
 However, many suggestions have come in relative to procedure in involuntary 
 cases. The more important of these we mention later. The following are less 
 important, and, for that reason, we do not recommend their adoption now: (1) 
 that hearings before the referee be made more formal, and that he may be permitted 
 to summon a jury ; (3) that jury trials be discretionary with the judge (§19); (3) 
 that service of subpoenas be made by persons not officers, where neither the 
 marshal nor a deputy marshal is a resident of the county of the bankrupt (§18-a); 
 (4) that an involuntary bankrupt who does not resist the petition be required to 
 file his schedules on the return day of the subpoena, this to save valuable time now 
 lost (§7 (S)); (5) that provision be made for the arrest, fine and commitment of 
 an absconding bankrupt. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON 
 LIENS, PREFERENCES AND EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 1, Preferences : The referees seem all but unanimous in believing that §60, 
 controlling on preferences, should be left as it is, especially in that the four 
 months period be neither increased nor decreased. At the same time, various 
 suggestions are made, which, while we either do not approve or consider of suffi- 
 cient importance to warrant a recommendation at this time, yet are submitted for 
 
fature consideration : (1) that the giving of a lieii or security for an antecedent 
 debt be a preference ; (3) that the burden of proving insolvency be upon the person 
 preferred ; (3) that the words " being insolvent " be stricken out of §60-a ; (4) that 
 §GO-a and b, be merged, and that the intention of the insolvent and the effect of the 
 transfer be the only tests. 
 
 A recent decision. In re Gonhaim, 97 Fed., 928, the doctrine of which has, we 
 understand, been approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit 
 (see Columbus Electric Corporation v. Worden, not yet reported), deserves con- 
 sideration. It is there held that the word "transfer" used in §60-a, includes any 
 payment of money on a pre-existing debt in the ordinary course of business, thus 
 making such a payment a preference, the result of which is that a creditor wlio 
 wishes to prove a claim, under §57-g must surrender any payment made in the 
 ordinary course of business since the bankrupt became insolvent. Without dis- 
 cussing the far-reaching effect of this decision, or making any recommendation on 
 it at this time, we submit it for consideration. 
 
 2, Liens : With a single exception, §67 has been more often construed by the 
 courts than any section under the present law. The contradiction which is claimed 
 to result from a comparison of §67-c with §67-f would be amusing, had it not led 
 to great confusion. For this reason, many referees have suggested that these two 
 sections be merged ; others, that §67-c be dropped out entirely ; others, that §67-f 
 at least be rephrased so that there will be no doubt that it applies to voluntary as 
 well as involuntary cases. The trend of decision, however, at the time of this 
 report, is such that §67-f seems now to be accepted as the controlling clause, and 
 in but few jurisdictions is it now held that it does not apply to voluntary cases. 
 (See numerous cases in the appendix). We, therefore, feel that, while the conflict 
 has been unfortunate, the matter can be left where it is, and hence make no 
 recommendations. 
 
 It is also suggested that §67-f be extended, so as to include not merely liens 
 recovered through legal proceedings, but all other liens not for a present valuable 
 consideration. This matter is one which can well await a general revision of the act. 
 
 3, Exemptions : From all parts of the country are heard protests growing out 
 of §6, which gives force to the widely different exemption laws of every State. 
 This is particularly true of those States which recognize liberal homestead 
 exemptions. The referees have made various suggestions on this subject : That 
 we re-enact the rigid clause of the law of 1867 (§14); that we make an upward 
 limit of, say, one thousand dollars homestead, and five hundred dollars personalty, 
 and allow exemptions to that extent only, irrespective of the laws of the States, or 
 that a discharge be refused to a bankrupt who, under the State law, claims more 
 than a certain amount of exemptions. It is also suggested that no exemptions be 
 allowed out of the stock in trade of a bankrupt merchant ; that endownment 
 policies payable to the wife, even though the bankrupt has an interest in them, 
 should be exempt ; etc., etc. 
 
 On the general subject, however, we do not feel that we should make any 
 recommendations. The question is so purely one of policy, and one in which local 
 prejudices are so powerful, that we doubt whether any suggestions by the referees 
 in bankruptcy would be either proper or fruitful in results. 
 
 At the same time, that the present policy of recognizing State exemptions be 
 not carried too far in collateral matters, we make two recommendations later. 
 
 TO THE COMMITTEE ON DISCHARGES AND OFFENSES. 
 1, Objections to a Discharge: It is unquestioned that the section of the 
 law which has called forth the most criticism is that controlling on discharges. 
 Later, we discuss this matter in detail and make several recommendations. In 
 
14 
 
 this place, howevef, we call attention merely to some changes which, while urged 
 with vigor by some, do not approve themselves to a majority of the referees or to 
 ourselves. They are as follows : (1) The English Bankruptcy Law makes it an 
 objection to a discharge (Amendatory Act of 1890) if a bankrupt cannot account 
 satisfactorily for losses. In the opinion of the referees, this objection would be 
 too indefinite, would lead to many groundless controversies, would often be success- 
 fully urged against an honest debtor, and therefore should not be adopted. (2) 
 Several referees have suggested that the concealing or attempting to conceal 
 property within a definite period of time before bankruptcy be an objection to a 
 discharge. It has been thought unwise to recommend this objection, for the 
 reason that concealing property from a trustee after bankruptcy is an offense under 
 the law and therefore an objection to a discharge, and, under the recognized 
 doctrine that such concealment is continuous, §29-b (1) will be sufficient as it now 
 stands. (3) It is also suggested that the bankrupt be required to pay a certain 
 rate per cent, in dividends. This, as is well known, is the English law, though 
 even such payment is to a certain extent within the discretion of the bankruptcy 
 judges. This country is, however, not ready to authorize the discretion given 
 English bankruptcy judges in the matter of discharges when the estate pays less 
 than 50^, and we are not yet prepared to recommend a return to the percentage 
 and consent plan of our Act of July 27, 1868, as amended in 1874, unless there be 
 a final discretion in the judge which will prevent a repetition of the abuses inci- 
 dent to that plan. 
 
 The following objections to a discharge have also been urged : (a) The tearing 
 from the books of account of the bankrupt of a leaf, or an erasure in or mutilation 
 of such books of account, with intent, etc.; (b) the making of a general assign- 
 ment under State laws ; or (c) the failure to keep books of account if a trader 
 doing business of three thousand dollars a year or more (compare §28 (3) a, 
 English Bankruptcy Act of 1883). While these suggestions have merit, yet they 
 are not urged with unanimity, and action thereon can be postponed until a general 
 revision of the law. 
 
 It has also been suggested that the law be so amended as to provide that it 
 operate for five years, merely as a suspension of the remedy for the collection of 
 debts, and that then, if the bankrupt has paid a certain percentage on his debts, 
 the suspension he extended for a like period, — an application of the reform- 
 atory principle to the rights of creditors. The suggestion is novel, but we do not 
 approve it. 
 
 2, The DischargaMlity of Debts : It is suggested that the following additions 
 be made to those debts which are not dischargable in bankruptcy (§17): (1) debts 
 for wages earned within three months, not to exceed three hundred dollars to any 
 individual ; (2) debts which have become liens upon the exempt property claimed 
 by the bankrupt ; (3) debts on forfeited bail bonds in criminal causes ; (4) debts 
 for necessaries within six months of the bankruptcy. We make no recommend- 
 ations on these matters at this time. 
 
 It is also suggested that §17-a (3) be amended by the addition of the words "and 
 address" after "name," so that no debt will be discharged unless the creditor's 
 address appears in the petition, the idea being to prevent the discharge of debts 
 without a,t least the informal and often doubtful notice by mail being sent to the 
 creditor. But in the lapse of years, it often becomes impossible to ascertaiii the 
 address of creditors, and the evil aimed at — want of effort to find the whereabouts 
 of the creditor — can be cured by more stringent rules, without an amendment to 
 the law. 
 
 It is also suggested that §1 7-a (4) be amended by rephrasing the clause " while actr 
 ing as an officer," etc., so as to remove existing doubts. This can be loft to decision. 
 
15 
 
 Other suggestions, looking to amendments in §17, are spoken of later. 
 
 3, Offenses: The suggested changes in §59 are the following : (1) that it be 
 an offense to make any false statement or entry in the books of a bankrupt, or to 
 change or forge any entry in such books, provided the latter are used in the course 
 of the bankruptcy proceeding ; (3) that it be an offense to knowingly or wilfully 
 resist or assault a trustee while performing his duty ; it beiug asserted that in one 
 or two instances trustees have been physically assaulted while endeavoring to get 
 possession of the property of their estates ; (3) that §39-b (1) be rephrased so as to 
 cover a concealment of property antedating the bankruptcy. The two former 
 changes do not seem to be very generally important, and the latter is probably 
 unnecessary on the theory that the concealment is continuous. For these reasons, 
 no recommendations are made on this subject. 
 
 TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 The questions propounded on the blanks for the Executive Committee brought 
 in many important Suggestions. Most of them, however, are discussed later in 
 this report. We make no recommendations on any of the suggestions set forth 
 under this heading in this portion of the report, in some cases not approving of the 
 suggestions, in others feeling that it is either unwise or unnecessary at this time. 
 
 1, Definition of Insolvency : With but few exceptions, the referees approve of 
 the present definition of insolvency (§L (5) ), though somtj criticise it for reasons 
 like the following : Because, owing to the introduction of expert testimony in 
 determining what is a fair valuation, it often results in mere guesswork ; because 
 it leaves the determination of what is a fair valuation to_ a Jury and not to 
 the judge ; because the meaning of fair valuation is not explained, as by such 
 a phrase as " measured by prices obtained at public sales." At the same time, 
 the sentiment is so generally in favor of the present definition that, aside from 
 a single change suggested later, we believe this subsection of the law should be 
 left alone. 
 
 3, Partnership Bankruptcies : Much doubt has been expressed by the courts 
 concerning the meaning of the words " before the final tettlement thereof " in §5-a, 
 some authorities holding that so long as there are debts to be paid, whether there 
 are assets or not, a partnership has not been finally settled ; and others, the con- 
 trary. See Appendix, under §5-a. It seems unreasonable that two or more persons 
 who ceased being partners years before can avail themselves of the bankruptcy 
 law to the extent of getting discharges which would cut off both partnership and 
 individual debts, at the same expense by way of fees, etc., as an individual 
 debtor must pay. At the same time, while the present confusion of decision is 
 unfortunate, the matter is not one of sufficient importance, in the judgment of 
 this Committee, to warrant amendment now. 
 
 It is also suggested that §5 be so amended as specifically to authorize, where 
 thete are no partnership assets, an individual petition which will result in a dis- 
 charge operative both on individual and partnership debts. For a like reason, 
 however, we do not make any recommendation. Indeed, it may be that any doubt 
 which has arisen is already settled by the decisions given in the Appendix. 
 
 3, Farumfor controversies to icJiich the Trustee is a Party: On no section of 
 the law are there as many conflicting decisions as §23. The existing confusion is 
 little less than confounding. Because of it, the administration of many an estate is 
 absolutely suspended. An examination of the cases cited in the Appendix will 
 reveal the reason. Some district courts hold that Congress intended by §33 to 
 limit the general terms of §? (7), and thus relegated practically aU CQi^troversies 
 
16 
 
 between the trustee and adverse claimant to the State courts. Other district 
 courts hold that, inasmuch as the bankrupt could not successfully maintain an 
 action to set aside a fraudulent transfer made by himself, such suits can be brought 
 in the federal courls. Some courts hold that the suit should be brought in the 
 circuit court ; others, in the district court. The decisions of the circuit courts of 
 appeals in the various circuits are equally antagonistic, and the bar and the busi- 
 ness interests of the country are utterly at sea. 
 
 The reports received from the referees devote more attention to this subject 
 than to any other, and the general opinion seems to be that some recommendation 
 should be made. With scarcely an exception, the belief is that jurisdiction should 
 be vested either in the federal courts exclusively, or in the federal and State courts 
 concurrently. At the same time, we understand that there is at present pending 
 before the Supreme Court a case entitled Bardes v. The First Natioivil Batik of 
 Haivarden (see 3 N. B. N. Kep., No. 6, Part 2, page 13) which will soon be 
 decided, and which should settle the controversy. Almost without exception, the 
 later decisions favor the federal courts. Should the Supreme Court decide the 
 other way, it may be wise to show the strong reasons which exist for at least con- 
 current jurisdiction. At this time, however, we do not think this necessary, and 
 therefore make no recommendation. 
 
 4, Pauper Petitions : No clause in the law has been more abused than that in 
 §51 -a, (3), which permits a poor person, on the filing of a mere affidavit, to secure 
 the benefits of the bankruptcy system without paying court expenses. One referee, 
 Henry Booth, Esq., of the Middle District of Alabamk, to whom two hundred pau- 
 per cases have been referred, reports as follows : " It (the pauper petition clause) 
 has induced much perjury in this District. One lawyer has been disbarred because 
 of it, and several others have been led into unprofessional conduct." The opinion 
 is general that this clause should either be eliminated or radically changed. It is 
 possible that the principle, if such it be, might be retained, by so rephrasing the 
 clause as to require the remission of the fees paid, on a proper showing before the 
 referee, or it is possible to retain the principle, by permitting a poor person to 
 go through bankruptcy on showing beforehand to the satisfaction of the judge or 
 the referee that he is in such circumstance as to warrant the charity of the court. 
 At the same time, reports from a very large proportion of the districts show that 
 the evil that has grown out of this clause is fairly under control. Early in the his- 
 tory of the law, in the Northern District of New York, the following rule was 
 adopted ; 
 
 Rule V. PEriTiO]^-iN Forma Pauperis. In case a petition is filed by a 
 proposed voluntary bankrupt which is accompanied by an affidavit under sub- 
 division 3 of Section 51 of the act, it shall be the duty of the clei-k to file said 
 petition without the payment of the fees provided for by law. If the clerk or 
 the referee to whom said petition is referred, has reason to believe such affidavit is 
 false, he may file a certificate to that effect and cause the bankrupt to be examined. 
 If, upon such examination, the referee reports in writing that the statements con- 
 tained in such affidavit are false, and that the bankrupt has or can obtain money 
 with which to pay said fees, such report shall be sufficient proof upon which to 
 base proceedings under subdivision 4 of general order No. XXXV. 
 
 The result of this rule is that none but meritorious poor persons can avail 
 themselves of §51-a (3). The mere examination usually leads to a speedy deposit 
 of the fees. In short, this Committee believes that it is not only unwise to meddle 
 with this pauper clause now, but that the matter is one which will yield to rules 
 and a sound discretion, and that it can safely be let alone, at least, for a time. 
 
 All other matters referred to OH the E?eQutiY§ Comwittee blank are discussed 
 j^ter an4 ill detail, 
 
17 
 
 IV. 
 Recommendations. 
 
 The numerous suggestions made are thus reduced to a few. They may be 
 classified under the heads : 1, Objections to Discharges and Debts not Discharg- 
 able ; 2, Compensation of Trustees ; 3, The Voluntary Bankruptcy of Corpor- 
 ations ; 4, Process, ProcedurCj etc. ; 5, Testimony by the Bankrupt and his Wife ; 
 6j Changes due to §6, on Exemptions. 
 
 1. OBJECTIOlSrS TO DISCHAKGES AND DEBTS NOT DISCHAEGABLE. 
 
 The law has been very generally criticised because it contains so few available 
 objections to a discharge. In many quarters, it has been asserted that it is im- 
 possible to prevent discharges. The fact is that few discharges have been refused. 
 As a matter of practical experience, attorneys have ceased objecting to discharges 
 unless they can prove false swearing during the pendency of the bankruptcy pro- 
 ceeding (§39-b (3) ). There is, therefore, an almost universal demand, not merely 
 from the commercial interests, but also from the referees, that there be several 
 additional objections to a discharge. We have already discussed some of the sug- 
 gestions made. We now proceed to discuss those which we feel should be 
 recommended, and which, for that reason, have been incorporated in the bill that 
 we have drawn. 
 
 a. A materially false staiemeni in writing, for the purpose of oitaining property 
 
 on credit: This was one of the objections to a discharge found in §51-b (3) of the 
 
 so-called Lindsay bill, introduced in the Senate on March 23, 1897, and also in 
 
 §13-b (3) of the so-called Henderson bill in the last Congress. In the compromise 
 
 of June, 1898, this objection was dropped out. We urge that it be restored. It is 
 
 demanded by the commercial interests of the country, and, had it been in force 
 
 during the past eighteen months, would have prevented the discharge of some 
 
 rogues. It seems impossible to improve upon the phrasing of the clause found in 
 
 the Henderson bill. For that reason, we have adopted it entire, merely remarking 
 
 in passing that this objection, as is proper, will be of no avail when a commercial 
 
 report is obtained in the haphazard fashion of a hasty interview. The statement 
 
 must be in writing, which, of course, implies the signature of the person to be 
 
 charged thereby. The phrase referred to has been inserted in the bill proposed by 
 
 this Committee, as follows : 
 
 Sec. 14-1) * * * or (3) olitained property on credit, which has not been paid for 
 or restored at the time the petition is filed hj or against him, upon a materially false 
 statement in irriting made by him to any person for the purpose of obtaining credit or 
 of being communicated to the trade or to the person from whom he obtained such 
 property on credit. 
 
 b. Making fraudulent preferences : By referring to the questions asked by the 
 Executive Committee, it will be noticed that the referees were requested to report 
 whether they would. favor the making of a preference as an objection to a discharge. 
 Very properly, a large proportion declined to approve such a change. A prefer- 
 ence may often be innocent and, if so, should not be a bar to a discharge. But 
 where the bankrupt transfers property to a creditor with the intent to give him a 
 preference, or by collusion with such creditor accomplishes the same result, such a 
 bankrupt should, in our ju.dgment, be refused a discharge. The English word is 
 not "fraudulent" but "undue" (Act of 1883, §38 (3) f). At the same time, the 
 creditor should be given opportunity to surrender. Such surrender should, how- 
 ever, be made practically forthwith, and not at the end of a suit. (Compare /w re 
 Baker, 2 N. B. N. Rep., 195. ) In other words, we would make it to the interest 
 
18 
 
 of the bankrupt, who usually has a personal hold upon the preferred creditor, to 
 secure the surrender of preferences without litigation. For these reasons, we have 
 somewhat changed the phrasing found in §13-b (3) of the Henderson bill, first, by 
 making it necessary to prove that the preference is fraudulent, second, by eliminat- 
 ing the clause, "and within six months prior to the filing of the petition against 
 him," as inconsistent with §63-a, which properly sets the limit back to the moment 
 of insolvency, and, third, by adding to the word "surrender" the words "within 
 ten days after demand by a receiver or the trustee." The suggested clause is 
 therefore : 
 
 §14-1], « * « or (4) made a fraudulent preference irhicli has not been surrendered 
 irithin ten days after demand by a receiver or trustee. 
 
 c. Making a fraudulent transfer: A preference cannot exist without insolv- 
 ency. A transfer may be fraudulent, however, without that element entering in. 
 We, therefore, would go further, and would make any fraudulent transfer a 
 sufficient objection to a discharge. This phrasing is new, but not materially 
 different from that found in §39 of the Law of 1867. In effect, it will probably 
 not be different from §13-b (4) of the Henderson bill. We have omitted from our 
 clause the idea of a possible surrender to the trustee, as of little value, it being 
 improbable that a fraudulent transferee would voluntarily surrender without suit. 
 The clause suggested is therefore : 
 
 §14-b * * * or (5) made a &audulent transfer of any portion of his property to any 
 person. 
 
 e. Bankruptcy due to gambling : Reports come in from different parts of the 
 country that bankrupts, when pressed by their creditors to account for their 
 failures, often assign them to losses due to gambling. The practical impossibility 
 of following property so lost and the frauds which may be covered up by answers 
 like this seem to us to warrant a recommendation that such an excuse be ground 
 for objection to a discharge. There will, of course, be some conflict of decision as 
 to the meaning of gambling, but the courts can be trusted to deny a discharge 
 only to him who does not deserve it. The loss of small sums should not, however, 
 set this clause in operation. The gambling should materially conduce to the 
 failure. The English Act makes this distinction, and we have adopted its phrase- 
 ology, with, as a matter of safety, the additional word "materially." The clause 
 suggested is, therefore, the following : 
 
 §14-b * * * oT (6) materially contributed to or brought on his bankruptcy by 
 gambling. 
 
 f . A previous discharge in bankruptcy : The English Act denies a discharge 
 to a bankrupt who has been previously discharged. The Law of 1867, §30, denied 
 it to a voluntary bankrupt, unless his estate would pay seventy per cent., 
 except on consent of three-fourths of his creditors who had proved their 
 claims. There are recorded instances of second discharges to the same individual 
 under the present law already, though usually the second discharge has been asked 
 for merely to cut off creditors who were accideatally omitted from the first sched- 
 ules. At the same time, it is entirely possible for a debtor to secure a discharge 
 in bankruptcy several times a year, a scandal which should not be permitted. We 
 do not favor either the English doctrine of once for all, nor yet that in force under 
 the Law of 1867, requiring a certain percentage, or the consent of creditors. The 
 present policy being against discretion, the opposite of it, a rigid time limit, seems 
 the best solution. Some referees were for making that limit one year, others for 
 making it ten. As a fair compromise of all the opinions sent in, we have sug- 
 gested that a second discharge be refused unless the previous discharge was granted 
 more than six years before. The clause is, therefore, the following : 
 
 §14«b, * * * or (7) been granted a discharge in.banhruptcy within six years, 
 
19 
 
 g. Refusal to obey any lawful order, or to answer any question approved by the 
 court : This matter will be discussed hereafter, under the head of " Testimony by 
 the Bankrupt and his Wife." 
 
 h. Destruction, etc., of books, with a view to concealing financial condition : 
 The second objection to a discharge found in the present §14-b has proved of little 
 value. The necessity of proving intent to conceal condition, coupled with the 
 still more difficult element of "contemplation of bankruptcy," which means bank- 
 ruptcy's?' se, and not mere insolvency, has rendered this objection all but useless. 
 Without enlarging on our reasons more than to refer to the cases in the Appendix, 
 we recommend the elimination of the latter element and the striking out of 
 "fraudulent" as unwise when "intent" must be shown, and "true" as redund- 
 ant. The amended clause, therefore, with new words indicated by underscore and 
 omitted matter in brackets would be : 
 
 Sec. 14 b, * * * or (2) with [firandulent] intent to conceal his [true] financial 
 condition, [and in contemplation of bankruptcy] since the passage of this act, de- 
 stroyed, concealed or failed to keep books of aooonnt or records from nirhioh such [his 
 true] condition might be ascertained. 
 
 i. When a bankrupt may apply for a discharge : There is also an increasing 
 demand that the time after which a bankrupt may apply for his discharge be 
 extended from one month to two. The latter was the period under the law of 1867. 
 It frequently happens now that a bankrupt may apply for his discharge before his 
 creditors have more than begun to examine him in the administration proceeding. 
 The difficulty has been met in some districts by rules providing that no discharges 
 shall be granted until creditors have had reasonable opportunity to complete their 
 examinations under §31 and §7 (9); but there can be little objection to a widening 
 of the bankrupt's period of idleness to two months instead of one. The clause, 
 therefore, would be as follows, the words, "not a corporation," being inserted here 
 to prevent an artificial person securing a discharge, a change which seems merely 
 declaratory of the law : 
 
 §14, DiSCHABOES, WHEN GRANTED, a. Any person, not a corporation, may after the 
 expiration of two [one] months and within the next twelve months * * * 
 
 1-a. DEBTS NOT DISCHABGABLE. 
 
 We recommend two changes in §17, which specify the debts not affected by a 
 discharge; first, that the words, "judgment in actions," found in §17-a (2), give 
 place to the word " liabilities ; " and, second, that such words be added that there 
 will be no question that alimony and liabilities of a like class are dischargable. 
 
 As to the first: The word "judgment" is of limited significance. If only 
 judgments are dischargable, the debt or claim or liability being provable, the 
 .bankrupt might successfully restrain the entry of the judgment until the debt was 
 discharged (§ll-a) and thus avoid the clear intendment of the law. It is said 
 that the use of the word judgment is due to the uncertainty under the law of 1867 
 as to whether the word " debt," then used, included "judgment." A word should 
 be used which includes both, or both words should be used with such proviso as 
 will prevent misinterpretation. We recommend that that word be "liability." A 
 debt is surely a liability ; so is a judgment ; nor, if the latter is grounded in fraud, 
 will the fraud be so drowned in it, under familiar principles, as to exclude it from 
 "liabilities for fraud," etc. See meaning of "liability" in English bankruptcy 
 law (§3 of the Amendatory Act of 1890). This Committee, and, so far as we 
 know, all of the referees who have considered the subject, are unanimously in 
 favor of this change. 
 
 As to the second : It is unnecessary more than to refer to the cases in the Appen- 
 dix, under §17-b, to show the reason for the change. In two OT three States, alimony 
 
2(1 
 
 has been held non-dischargable under the present law, but only because ifi. such States 
 it had been held something higher than a mere debt. In other States, under what 
 seems a fair construction of §17-a (2) alimony, even installments to accrue, have 
 been held discharged by bankruptcy proceedings, an evil which should be remedied 
 immediately. A like danger seems to exist where the liability is for maintenance 
 or support of a child, or for seduction, and we have so phrased this clause as to 
 include such liabilities. We also considered whether judgments for breach of 
 promise of marriage and for criminal conversation should not be included in this 
 clause, but determined to make no recommendations on those subjects. The 
 clause, therefore, will be found in the following re-draft of the first part of §17-a, 
 new words being indicated by underscore and words omitted by brackets : 
 
 §17. Debts not Affected by a Discharge, a. A discharge in bankruptcy shall 
 release a bankrupt from all his provable debts, except such as (1) are due as a tax 
 levied by the United States, the State, county, district or municipality in -which 
 he resides, (2) liabilities [judgments in actions] for frauds, or obtaining money by 
 false pretenses or false representations, or for willfal and malicious injuries to the 
 person or property of another, or for alimony due or to become due, or for main- 
 tenance or support of ivife or child, or for seduction of an unmarried female. 
 
 2. COMPENSATION OF TKUSTEE. 
 
 Quite every report received urged that the compensation of the trustee be in- 
 creased. Indeed, several referees asserted that unless some change was made, the 
 law, as one controlling on the administration of assets, will prove a failure. In 
 the large commercial centers, the present compensation is considered to be but 
 little short of ridiculous. In more scattered communities, it rarely pays more 
 than day wages for work which usually requires considerable business experience 
 or technical skill. It seems impossible to meet the difficulty by providing that 
 the trustee be paid the same commissions as executors or administrators in his State ; 
 some States do not fix such commissions. The proper solution would seem to be 
 along the line of what follows : 
 
 From the mass of comments and suggestions sent in, we deduce the following 
 criticisms of the present system of compensation : (a) that, where there are no 
 assets, the filing fee is too small ; (b) that the percentages allowed are too little, in 
 particular, in small estates; (c) that commissions are reckoned on dividends only ; 
 and (d) that no extra compensation is possible where it is necessary to manage a 
 going business. 
 
 a. Mr. Henry W. Leman, the second vice-president of the Chicago Title & 
 Trust Co., a corporation which probably has had more experience as trustee than 
 any corporation or individual under the present law, has put before us a memorial 
 on this subject, from which we quote : 
 
 " By reason of our company making a specialty of these insolvent estates, we 
 have been taking the trusteeships in all estates where we have been selected. In 
 ninety-five per cent of them, there are either no assets whatever, or assets of such 
 nominal value that they will not yield the cost of advertising the same for sale. 
 In all such cases where the compensation is but five dollars a case, we have made a 
 record of the cost to us at which we have transacted such business, and find that, 
 on an average, the expense to us of conducting such business in each estate has 
 been in excess of fifteen dollars. In other words, this company would be willing 
 to negotiate with any reasonable party to do all the work in these cases wh.ere there 
 are no assets or only nominal assets, if he will relieve us from the responsibility of 
 doing the same, paying him ten dollars or fifteen dollars in each case, for which 
 we receive but five dollars in each case." 
 
 It is true that it is usually possible to eecure a law student or a lawyer just starting 
 in the profession to act as trustee for the five-dollar fee, but, in the nature of 
 
21 
 
 things, he rarely does anything after he has filed his bond and talked the matter 
 over with the bankrupt. His bond often costs him his entire fee, and, even if he 
 finds friends willing to serve as bondsmen, five dollars is poor pay for the time 
 taken and responsibility assumed. There is no incentive to induce him to spend 
 more time in the matter. All "no asset " cases should be thoroughly investigated 
 by the trustee. If his services result in the discovery of property, even if small, 
 he should be properly rewarded. But, in any event, there should be some incen- 
 tive to begin the investigation. AVe, therefore, strongly recommend that the 
 deposit fee be doubled and hereafter be ten dollars. 
 
 b. The percentages are much too little in small cases. Again, there is no 
 incentive. If, under the prevailing rule, requiring a computation merely on 
 moneys paid as dividends, a trustee by zealous work succeeds in recovering, say, 
 five hundred dollars worth of property at an expense of, say, one hundred dollars, 
 he receives for his pains — frequently days of investigation and splendid service — 
 the munificent sum of twelve dollars, in addition to his five-dollar filing fee. The 
 small cases outnumber the large ten to one. We consider it, therefore, of vital 
 moment to^increase the commissions paid trustees in small cases, and to make such 
 commissions large enough to be tempting. For this reason, we recommend that, 
 where the moneys collected by the trustee do not exceed five hundred dollars, his 
 commissions shall be at the rate of ten per cent. For like reasons, we recommend 
 that his commissions on the next one thousand dollars be at the rate of five per 
 cent. ; on the next eighty-five hundred dollars — where, under the present law, they 
 would drop from three per cent, to two per cent, after the five-thousand-dollar 
 mark — be at the rate of three per cent, throughout ; but that the present rate be 
 retained above ten thousand dollars. Under these rates of commission, the expense 
 of administering bankrupt estates of any size will still be much lower than the 
 expense of administering insolvent estates under the State laws ; and the compen- 
 sation paid in small estates will tempt trustees to do their utmost to find and 
 administer property. These suggested changes -are approved by this Committee 
 unanimously. 
 
 c. But, more than this, there should be a change in the method of reckoning 
 commissions. It frequently, happens that, even in large estates, the expenses of 
 administration, litigated cases, etc., being numerous and scattered, call for or 
 exceed twenty per cent, of the entire estate. In small estates, such expenses reach 
 a much higher percentage. Further, large sums are often paid on priority claims 
 or to secured creditors. The various district courts at present agree that commis- 
 sions cannot under the present law be reckoned on expenses of administration, 
 but they do not agree as to whether commissions can be reckoned on moneys paid 
 on priority or secured debts. See cases in Appendix under Sec. 48-a. Unques- 
 tionably, commissions are earned when priority or secured creditors are paid 
 through the bankruptcy proceeding, just as much as when unsecured creditors are 
 paid. The rule applicable in most of the States seems more reasonable. The 
 principal sum on which commissions are reckoned should be the money for which 
 the trustee has been responsible. If he receives it, he should get half commissions ; 
 if he pays it out, he should get the other half. At any rate, the present law 
 should be changed ; and our recommendation is that it be changed in accordance 
 with the clause which follows : 
 
 We also recommend that this section be so changed as. to authorize the pay- 
 ment of not more than one half commissions to trustees where there has been a 
 composition agreement. Frequently, such agreements are entered into before 
 trustees are appointed, but, if they are appointed, they should be paid for their 
 services, and while one half commissions may be in some cases more than fair, in 
 
otkers, it would be less than just. The clauses suggested are therefore the follow- 
 ing, new words being indicated by underscore and omitted words by brackets : 
 
 §48, OOMPBNSATION OF TRUSTEES, a. Trustees shall receive [as full compensation] 
 for their services, payahle after they are rendered, » fee of ten [five] dollars depos- 
 ited with the clerk at the time the petition is filed in each ease, except when a fee^ is 
 not required from a voluntary bankrupt, and from estates which they have adminis- 
 tered, such commissions on all moneys received and paid out by them [sums to be paid 
 as dividends and commissions] as may be allowed by the court, not to exceed ten per 
 centum on the first five hundred dollars or less, five per centum on th e ne xt one thon- 
 sand dollars or part thereof^ three per centum on the next eighty-five handred doll ars 
 or part thereof, and one per centum on such moneys [three per centum on the first 
 five thousand dollars or less, tw^o per centum on the second five thousand dollars or 
 part thereof, and one per centum on such sums] in excess of ten thousand dollars. 
 
 b. In the event of the confirmation of a composition after the qaa lification of a 
 trustee, the court may allow such trustee not more than one half commissions on th e 
 moneys or property received by him. 
 
 d. The law does not seem to contemplate the necessity of continuing a going 
 business or manufacturing plant. This is, of course, possible under the general 
 powers conferred on the judges and referees. The practical dilfieulty is that, when 
 this is done, only by resort to first principles, entirely outside of the few even if 
 not in derogation of it, can a trustee be adequately paid. (See In re Plummer, 
 2 N. B. N. Rep. 292.) The result is that plants are broken up which should have 
 continued in operation, and stores closed and good wills lost unnecessarily. The 
 Law of 1867 permitted extra allowances in extraordinary cases. A like discretion 
 should be given now, limited, perhaps, to cases where business must be continued. 
 We, therefore, recommend that §3 (5) be so amended as to read as follows, new 
 words being indicated by the underscore : 
 
 gg^ * * * ^Q ^5j authorize the business of bankrupts to be conducted for lim- 
 ited periods by receivers, the marshals or trustees, if necessary in the best interests 
 of the estates, and allow such officers additional compensation for such services * # ~ 
 
 3. TOLUNTABY BANKEUPTCY OF COBPOKATIONS. 
 
 1. Additions to %4.': By §4 of the present law, none but natural persons can 
 become voluntary bankrupts. At the time of the passage of the act, there seems 
 to have been a general belief that it would be unwise to permit corporations to 
 seek the refuge of bankruptcy. This was doubtless due to the feeling that the law 
 was in reality intended for the discharge of debtors, rather than the administra- 
 tion of estates. An experience of eighteen months has convinced the commercial 
 community, as it has the referees, that a change should now be made. 
 
 Our reasons for recommending this change are, briefly, the following : 
 
 (1.) It is one of the general purposes of the bankruptcy law to provide a 
 uniform JSTational law by which insolvent traders can make a pro rata distribution 
 of their assets among creditors, and there is no reason apparent why trading cor- 
 porations as well as trading copartnerships should not be permitted to avail them- 
 selves of this statute. 
 
 (2.) In the more important commercial States, small, corporations, with their 
 limited liability, have practically superseded partnerships. As the law now stands, 
 short of the commission of an act of bankruptcy, these corporations must wind up 
 their affairs under the procedure of the State which created them, a procedure which 
 is everywhere less favorable to creditors. 
 
 (3.) Owing to the lack of comity between the States, a receiver of an insolvent 
 corporation in one State is rarely recognized in another, with the result that the 
 creditors in that other State, by garnishee process or otherwise, may, unless the 
 corporation commits an act of bankruptcy, secure preferences. 
 
23 
 
 (4.) If a corporation seeks to wind up its affairs and distribute its assets by 
 means of a receivership, sucli a proceeding does not constitute an act of bankruptcy, 
 and, consequently, creditors are entirely deprived of the valuable rights and safe- 
 guards provided by the Bankruptcy Law. 
 
 (5.) As the law now stands, a corporation which wishes to be administered in 
 bankruptcy is compelled to go through the motions of committing an act of bank- 
 ruptcy that involuntary bankruptcy may be alleged against it, and it be brought 
 into court apparently against its will. This circumlocution is bad in principle and 
 worse in practice. 
 
 Much might be said in elaboration of these points, especially the first, viz : 
 That there is no valid reason why an artificial person in a mercantile business 
 should not have the same rights touching voluntary bankruptcy as has a natural 
 person. It is true that such artificial person does not seek a discharge. But it 
 does seek the distribution of its assets, and it should not, therefore, be driven 
 away from a system, which takes from its directors the choice of the administer- 
 ing officer and give such choice to its creditors, and which reduces fee bills, but 
 increases dividends. 
 
 At the same time, there are valid reasons why corporations should be restricted 
 in exercising this right. In the first place, the existing policy of the law should 
 limit the right to those corporations which can be adjudged involuntary bank- 
 rupts, while, of course, omitting the aggregate debt limitation of $1,000 as incon- 
 sistent. In the second place, stockholders only, and not directors 2}er se, should 
 determine whether a petition should be filed. In the third place, an adjudicatioQ 
 in bankruptcy of a corporation should neither lead to its own discharge nor affect 
 the statutory liabilities of its officers and stockholders. 
 
 The first limitation goes without saying, at least until Congress shall determine 
 to allow the involuntary bankruptcy of all corporations not essentially public in 
 their nature, with perhaps an exception, suggested by several of the referees in the 
 extreme western States, who call attention to the fact that it is not possible for a 
 mining corporation to be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt. This we consider an 
 omission without design, and, therefore, recommend that addition. to the law. 
 
 A majority of stockholders in amount should certainly control the transactions 
 of a corporation. Theoretically, they are supposed to do so now. We propose to 
 make it practically possible, when that corporation becomes insolvent and wishes 
 to go through bankruptcy. To meet cases also where the stockholders may be 
 widely scattered, we propose to give an option which will permit the decision of 
 the question by a majority vote, which, of course, includes proxy votes, at a meet- 
 ing called for that purpose. 
 
 It is probably unnecessary to recite the reasons for the other restriction. It is 
 based on public policy, and is expressive of existing decisions. 
 
 For the reasons above indicated, therefore, we would rephrase §4 as follows, 
 new matter being indicated by the underscore and omitted word by brackets : 
 
 Sec. 4. Who May Become Bankrupts, a. Any natural person and any unin- 
 corporated company owing [iirho owes] debts [except a corporation], shall be 
 entitled to the benefits of this Act as a voluntary bankrupt. 
 
 b. Any corporation engaged principally in manufacturing, trading, printing, 
 publishing, mining, or mercantile pursuits, shall be entitled to the benefits of this 
 Act as a -voluntary bankrupt, on petition of an officer or stockholder of such cor- 
 poration, duly authorized either by t he vote of a majority in amount o f the stock^ 
 holders present at a meeting of stockholders called for that purpose, or the written 
 consent of stockholders holdin g at l ea st one-half the stock of such corporation. 
 
 c. Any natural person, except a wage-earner or a person engaged chiefly in 
 farming or the tillage of the soil, any unincorporated company, and any corpora- 
 tion engaged principally in manufacturing, trading, printing, publishing, mining, 
 or mercantile pursuits, owing debts to the amoont of one thousand dollars or over, 
 
24 
 
 majr lie adjudged an involnntary bankrupt upon default or an impartial trial, and 
 shall be subject to the provisions and entitled to the benefits of this act. Private 
 bankers, but not national banks or banks incorporated under State or Territorial 
 la-nrs, may be adjudged involuntary bankrupts. 
 
 d. The bankruptcy of a corporation shall not release it s officers, directors or 
 stockholders, as such, from an y liability under the laws of a State or Territory, or of 
 the United States. 
 
 We have not thought it wise, at this time, to urge the elimination of the present 
 discrimination in favor of wage-earners and farmers. 
 
 2, Receiverships as acts of lankruptcy : The reasons already stated also sug- 
 gest that §3-a (4) should be changed so that when an insolvent corporation seeks to 
 administer its affairs in the State courts, other than by a general assignment, that 
 such action on its part shall be deemed an act of bankruptcy. This question has 
 been broached under the present law, and is not yet determined. It has, however, 
 been held flatly in two cases that an application by an insolvent corporation for a 
 receiver under the State law is not the equivalent of a general assignment, though 
 it was intimated in one of them that such a transaction is possibly an act of bank- 
 ruptcy under a broad and liberal construction of §3-a (1). (Compare In re Empire 
 ■Metallic Bedstead Go., 98 Fed. 981, s. c. below, 95 Fed. 957 ; also In re Baker- 
 Ricketson Co., 97 Fed. ^89; and both with In re Qutwillig, 92 Fed. 337.) 
 There should be no doubt on this subject. 
 
 Unless the law is changed, owing to the larger fees paid court officers and the 
 larger allowances made attorneys under the State system of administering insolvent 
 corporations, and, therefore, the growing unpopularity of the bankruptcy law with 
 such classes, to say nothing of the increasing aversion to the bankruptcy system 
 by all debtors who have aught to conceal, or prefer a friendly liquidation to one 
 controlled by their creditors, there will be a general scurrying of partnerships and 
 individuals into corporations, that thereby they may have immunity from investiga- 
 tion by creditors and shelter themselves behind the often too lax clauses of State 
 corjioration laws. For these reasons, we suggest that g3-a (4) be amended so as to 
 read as follows, new words being indicated by underscore : 
 
 ^3. Acts OF BamvHUPTCY a. Acts of bankruptcy by a person shall consist of his 
 having * ^ '•' or (4,) made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors, 
 or, if a corporation, applied for or been put in charge of a receiver or trustee, under 
 the laivs of a State or Territory, or of the United States, on the ground of insolvency. 
 
 4. PKOCESS, PROCEDURE, ETC. 
 
 Much valuable time has been lost in involuntary cases by what seem the too 
 liberal time limits fixed by §18-a. The writ of subpoena need not now be return- 
 able until fifteen days after it is issued, and the alleged bankrupt then has ten 
 days in which to answer. In practice, this means from twenty to twenty-five days 
 lost at the outset. If the bankrupt appears and does not answer, an adjudication 
 in bankruptcy follows at, say, the end of twenty-five days. Then, the bankrupt 
 has ten days in which to file schedules (§7 (8)), and then all creditors must be 
 given ten days notice of the first meeting. Thus, not until practically six weeks 
 have elapsed, even where there is no contest, is there any person authorized to 
 administer the estate and not until one month has passed, as a rule, is it possible — 
 short of becoming liable to the severe penalties of the bond required by §69, or 
 risking a doubling of fees by the appointment of an officer specified in §3 (3) — to 
 take possession of (he property of a bankrupt. 
 
 Many suggestions aimed at these difficulties have been made. Of these sug- 
 gestions, those which seem most valuable are the following : (1) That, instead of 
 allowing the bankrupt ten days extra to answer after he has appeared, that he ap- 
 pear and answer at the same time. (2) That, instead of putting an upward limit 
 
25 
 
 of fifteen days on the service of a subpoena that the limit be ten days. This 
 change, coupled with that just mentioned, would, in default capes, reduce this 
 interregnum of idleness by half. (3) That §18-a, last sentence, be changed so as 
 to more definitely indicate the method of service on an absconding bankrupt, and 
 to cut down the time of publication from six weeks to two weeks. 
 
 It seems to us unnecessary to enlarge further on the reasons for these changes. 
 We, therefore, recommend that §18-a and b, be amended so as to read as follows, 
 new matter being underscored and matter omitted in brackets : 
 
 gl8. Prockss, Pleadings and Ad.iudications. a, ITpou the filing of a petition for 
 involuntary bankruptcy, service thereof, with a writ of subpoena, shall be made 
 upon the person therein named as defendant in the same manner that service of such 
 process is now had upon the commencement of a suit in equity in the courts of the 
 United States, except that it shall be returnable within ten [fifteen] days, unless the 
 judge shall for cause fix a longer time ; but in case personal service cannot be made, 
 then notice shall be given by publication in the same manner and for the same time 
 as provided by law for notice by publication in suits to enforce a legal or equitable 
 lien [in equity] in courts of the United States, except that, unless the judge shall oth- 
 erwise direct, the order shall be published not more than once a week for two consec- 
 utive -weeks, and the return day shall be not more than twenty days after the first 
 publication. 
 
 b. The bankrupt or any creditor, may appear and plead to the petition on or 
 before [within ten days after] the return day, or mrithin such further time as the court 
 may allcw. 
 
 5. testi:mony by the bankrupt or his wife. 
 
 Two criticisms have come in from all parts of the country : (1) that, in those 
 States where the wife is not a competent witness as to transactions with her hus- 
 band, the creditors are greatly hindered in, if not entirely deprived of, their 
 remedy, in case the bankrupt has fraudulently transferred property to her ; (2) that 
 there is dn epidemic of constitutional privilege spreading over the country, in the 
 form of refusals by bankrupts to testify, on the ground that their answers will tend 
 to incriminate them. Of these evils, the latter is, of course, the greater, and the 
 remedy the more puzzling. 
 
 1. As to the former, good morals as well as sound policy would seem to make 
 the wife a compellable witness, as to all business transactions at least. She is no 
 longer & femme covert, in the old sense ; such communications should no longer be 
 privileged. If, however, §31-a is left as it is, in many States property will be put 
 beyond the reach of creditors, and the chief witness to the transaction be allowed 
 to laugh in their faces, while blandly asserting her privilege. (See In re Fovler, 
 93 Fed. 4.17 ; In re Jefferson, 3 Am. B. R. 17^; In re Mayer, 3 Am. B. R. 222.) 
 With one or two exceptions, every referee who has reported on this subject favors 
 a change.in §21, which will make the wife a compellable witness as to transac- 
 tions with her husband. The judges and referees can be trusted to keep her exam- 
 ination within proper bounds. We, therefore, recommend that §21-a be so 
 amended as to read as follows, new matter being indicated by underscore, matter 
 omitted, by brackets : 
 
 §21. Evidence, a. A court of bankruptcy may, upon application of any officer 
 bankrupt or creditor, by order require any designated person, including the bank- 
 rupt and his -wife [-who is a competent witness under the laws of the State in which 
 the proceedings are pending] to appear * * * , etc. 
 
 2. It needs no argument to show that if a bankrupt can rest on his constitu- 
 tional privilege and decline to answer questions, he being both judge and jury as 
 to whether such questions are proper, §7 (9) is a mere nullity. (See In re Sapiro, 
 1 Am. B. R. 296 J In re Scott, 95 Fed. 815 ; In re Rosser, 96 Fed. 305.) It is the 
 dishonest bankrupt concerning, whose transactions creditors are the most inquisi- 
 tive, and such a bankrupt will not be loath to assert his privilege, even without 
 reason. This has happened already, and the decisions seem to be uniform that. 
 
26 
 
 under the doctrine laid down in Oouncilman v. Hitchcock, IJ/^ U. S., 5Ji.1 , the pro- 
 tection given the bankrupt by the last clause of §7 (9) is not the equivalent of his 
 constitutional privilege, and that, for that reason, he may decline to answer. See 
 cases in Appendix under Sec. 7 (9). 
 
 Two ways have been suggested of reaching this difficulty : First, that the law 
 be amended by the insertion of a clause similar to that which was inserted in the 
 Interstate Commerce Act in 1893, giving the bankrupt absolute immunity from 
 punishment for any of the matters or things concerning which he gives testimony, 
 which clause has been held constitutional, though by a court almost equally 
 divided, in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S., 591. This Committee has given the sub- 
 ject most careful consideration, but, in view of the doubtful constitutionality of a 
 federal statute which purports to prevent punishments under a State law, as well 
 as the doubtful expediency of giving the bankrupt pardon in advance for crimes 
 which he may have committed, as well as wrongs he may have done creditors, we 
 have determined not to recommend the insertion of an amnesty clause in the bank- 
 ruptcy law. 
 
 There may be some question touching the constitutionality of the remedy which 
 we suggest, viz : that a bankrupt who refuses to answer any question approved by 
 the court, shall, on the application of any creditor, be denied his discharge ; but 
 whether the debtor be a voluntary or an involuntary bankrupt, when he applies 
 for his discharge he is asking the exercise of a power of the highest and most far- 
 reaching kind, not merely the enjoyment of a right or privilege inherent in him 
 under the constitution. He is in equity, and must be just. If he says to the 
 court : " Put up the bars against my creditors that they may not harass me," he 
 should also be forced to tell to those creditors any facts concerning his transac- 
 tions, in particular, those facts involving his own fraud or wrong doing. He may, 
 it is true, be asked to testify to facts which, if proven against him by other wit- 
 nesses in a criminal proceeding, might lead to his conviction. But he has his 
 choice. If he knows he is a criminal, he will decline to testify and thereby escape 
 punishment but lose his discharge. If he has nothing to fear, he will testify, and 
 receive it. At least, the present habit of hiding behind the privilege will end. 
 For these reasons, we earnestly recommend an amendment which will make his 
 refusal to answer any question approved by the court an objection to a discharge. 
 
 Similar reasons have led us to recommend that a discharge be refused to any 
 bankrupt who has refused to obey any order of the court. This clause is new, but 
 we consider it valuable ; contempt proceedings are rare and the punishment light. 
 We, therefore, recommend that the eighth objection to a discharge be phrased as 
 follows : 
 
 Sec. 14-b * * * or (8), in the course of Ms proceeding refused to obey*any lair- 
 fnl order of, or to ansv^er any question approved by, the court. 
 
 6. CHANGES DUB TO §6, OK EXEMPTIONS. 
 
 This Committee has already given its reasons for making no recommendations 
 concerning §6, controlling on exemptions. At the same time, out of that section 
 have grown two evils which should be struck at by amendments : (1.) The defini- 
 tion of "insolvency" is being abused in certain States where homestead exemp- 
 tion are large. Thus, in a State which allows a homestead exemption of, say, seven 
 thousand dollars, and where the bankrupt is worth, say, three thousand dollars in 
 addition to his homestead, when an involuntary petition, alleging that he owes 
 debts amounting to five thousand dollars, is filed against him, he will escape an 
 adjudiction by proving that his property is worth, at a fair valuation, ten thousand 
 dollars, whereas seven thousand of it is exempt, and but three thousand dollars is 
 available for the payment of his debts. This is a manifest wrong on creditors that 
 
27 
 
 needs no further comment. We, therefore, recommend that §l-a (15) be amended 
 so as to read as follows, new matter being underscored : 
 
 §l-a. * * * (15) a person shall he deemed insolvent 'nrithin the provisions of 
 this Act -whenever the aggregate of his property, exclusive of any property which he 
 may have conveyed, transferred, concealed or removed, or permitted to he concealed 
 or removed, -with intent to defraud, hinder or delay his creditors, or which is exempt 
 under the lavrs of the United States or of the State or Territory in which the pro- 
 ceedings in hankrnptcy were hegun, shall not at a fair valuation, he suiBcient in 
 amount to pay his dehts •**-!<' 
 
 It has been held in one or two of the districts that a bankrupt may claim his 
 homestead and, if the same is encumbered by taxes, insist that the taxes be paid 
 out of the estate. (See In re Tilden, 1 Am. B. R. SOO ; In re Baker, 1 Am. B. R. 
 526.') While this evil is not one of great importance, yet we consider it suflSciently 
 so to recommend a change that will end it. The bankrupt should take his home- 
 stead charged with any liens thereon, especially with tax liens. For that reason 
 we suggest that the first part of §64-a be amended so as to read as follows : 
 
 g64. Debts which have PniOKiTY.. a. The court shall order the trustee to pay all 
 taxes legally due and owing hy the hanhrupt to the United States, State, county, dis- 
 trict or municipality, except such taxes as are a lien on a homestead claimed hy or 
 set off to him as exempt, in advance of the payment of dividends to creditors. 
 
 We have gone into this matter thus in detail for reasons already indicated. 
 For the further reason, also, that, in the nature of things, the referees in bank- 
 ruptcy are more experienced in the administration of the bankruptcy law than any 
 other class of citizens, as, from their day-by-day relations with creditors, they are 
 better informed concerning the wishes of the business community. Alone of all 
 the civilized, and even most semi-civilized, nations of the world, this nation has 
 for the past two decades been without a bankruptcy law. In that period, we have 
 greatly grown in commercial importance, and our business, which thirty years ago 
 was largely local or "limited to great cities and the States in which they were, has 
 now become inter-state ; in other words, national. With the increase of business 
 has come an increased necessity of a national statute, regulating not merely the 
 discharge of debtors — that is the lesser need — but, more, the administration of 
 insolvent estates. The object of the Association, as we take it, is, therefore, to 
 formulate from time to time, reports which will call attention to those sections of 
 the law that need amendment, to the end that ultimately this country of ours may 
 have a permanent bankruptcy statute, which is scientifically constructed and fairly 
 representative of the differing yet allied interests of the debtor and the creditor. 
 
 Dated, Buffalo, N. Y., March 21, 1900. 
 
 WILLIAM H. HOTCHKISS, 
 
 (No. Dist. of New York,) 
 SIDNEY C. EASTMAN, 
 
 (No. Dist. of Illinois,) 
 OHAELES E. CLAPP, 
 
 (Dist. of Nebraska,) 
 D. L. GEAYSON, • 
 
 (E. Dist. of Tennessee,) 
 WILLIAM E. BLAIE, 
 
 (W. Dist. of Pennsylvania,) 
 THOMAS T. OEITTENDBN, 
 
 (W. Dist. of Missouri,) 
 N. W. LITTLEFIELD, 
 
 (District of Rhode Island,) 
 Executive Committee. 
 
29 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 TABLE OF CASES* 
 
 REPORTED UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1898 TO MARCH 15, 1900, 
 ARRANGED P.V SECTION, SUBSECTION AND SUBDIVISION 
 
 ROYAL A. GUNNISON, Esq., Referee in Bankruptcy, 
 
 AT BINGHAMTON, N. Y. 
 
 EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS. 
 
 N. B. N. : National Bankruptcy News, including National Bankruptcy News and Reports. 
 
 Am. B. R. ; American Bankruptcy Reports. 
 
 Fed. : Federal Reporter. 
 
 C. C. A. 7 : Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. 
 
 J. O. N. D. N. Y. : District Court Judges Opinion, Northern District of New York. 
 
 R. O. W. D. Mo. . District Court Referee's Opinion, Western District of Missouri. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. 
 Definitions. 
 
 SEC. 1 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 CJ. 1 In re Richards, 3 N. B. N. 38, C. C. A. 7; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 145; '96 Fed. 935. 
 
 In re Vaughn, 2 N. B. N. 101, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c 3 Am. B. R. 363 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 500. 
 In re Higgins, 3 N. B, N. 115, J. O. D. Ky.; s, c. 97 Fed. 775. 
 In re Waxelbaum, SN. B. N. 338, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Spacht, 3 N. B. N. 338, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 
 Peck Lumber Manufacturing Co. vs. Mitchell, 1 Am. B. R. 701, C. C. P. Pa. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 518, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 In re Geister, 3 Am. B. R. 328, J. O. N. D. la. ; s. c. 97 Fed. 560. 
 In re O'Connor, 95 Fed. 943, J. 0. E. D. N. Y. 
 
 * The cases tabulated, as a rule, refer specifically to the section, subsection or subdivision. No attempt has been 
 made to include all cases which construe but do not, in words, refer to a section of 'the Law. 
 
30 
 CI. 2 
 01. 3 
 
 CI- 4 In re Averill, 1 N. B. N, 544 R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 CI. 6 
 
 CI. 6 In re Styer, 2 N, B N. 205, J O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 Am. B R. 136, R. O. N D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 7 In re Long, IN. B. N., 12 R. O 
 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 214, R O. N. D. Ala. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 572. 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 427. R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Tilden, 91 Fed. 500, J O. S D. la. 
 
 CI. 8 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 437, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 9 In re Walker, 1 N. B. N. 510, J. O. D. N. Da. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 35 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 550. 
 In re Simonson, Whiteson & Co., 1 Am. B, R. 197, J. O. D Ky. 
 In re Leigh Bros., 2 Am. B. R. 606, R. O. D. Colo, 
 In re Blankfein, 97 Fed. 191. J. O. S D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 10 In re Romanow et al, 1 N. B. N. 213, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Harris, 1 N. B. N. 384, R. O. N. D. 111.; s. c. 2 Am. B R. 359. 
 In re Gerson, 2 Am. B. R. 170, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Stevenson, 93 Fed. 789, E. D. N. C. 
 In re Richard, 94 Fed. 633, E. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 11 In re Norcross, 1 N. B N. 258, R. O. W. D. (Ho. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 389, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 93 Fed. 948. 
 
 In re Richard, 1 N. B. N. 487, J. O. E, D. N. C ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 506 ; 94 
 
 Fed. 633. 
 In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 547, J. O. D. Kan. 
 In re Baker, 3 N. B. N. 195, J. O. E. D. Tex. 
 In re Houston, 94 Fed. 121, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 CL 12 IQ re Van Orden, 1 N. B. N, 475, J. O. D. N. J.; s. c. 96 Fed. 86; 2 Am. B. R. 
 801. 
 In re Houston, 94 Fed. 131, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
Bl 
 
 CI. 13 
 
 CI. 14 
 
 CI. 15 Bray-vs. Oobb, 1 N. B N. 209, J. O E. D N. C. 
 In re Martin, 1 N. B. N. 301, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co , 1 N. B. N. 301, R 0. N. D N. Y. 
 In re Ebert, 1 Am. B. R. 340, R. O. W. D. Wis. 
 In re Meyers, 1 Am B R 1, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 State ex rel. Strohl, 2 Am B R 93 ; Sup. Ct. Wash. 
 In re Rome Mills, 8 Am. B R. 123, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In reBaumano, 3 Am. B. R. 196, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s. c 96 Fed. 946. 
 
 CI. 16 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B R. 315, R. O. N. D. N, Y. 
 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 427. R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 -In re Huddleston, 1 Am. B R. 572, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 
 CI. 17 In re Long, 1 N. B, N. 12, J. O. S. D, O. 
 
 CI. 18 InreFixen&Co., 1 N. B. N. 568, J. O. S. D. Cal.; s c. 2 Am. B. R. 832. 
 In re Wolpert, 1 Am. B. R. 436, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 19 1° re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B N. 301, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s c. 1 
 
 Am. B. R, 136. 
 In re Meyer et al, 1 N. B N. 804, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Brice. 1 N. B. N. 310, J. O. S. D. la ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 197 ; 93 Fed. 943. 
 In re Chemrcal National Bank vs. Meyer & Dickinson, 1 Am. B R. 565, J. O. 
 
 E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Marshall Paper Co., 2 Am. B. R. 653, J. O. D. Mass ; s. c. 95 Fed. 419. 
 
 CI. 20 West vs. Lea Bros., 1 N. B. N. 409, U. S. S. C ; s. c 2 Am. B. R 463. 
 In re Lewis & Bros., 1 Am. B. R. 458, J. 0. S. D N. Y. 
 In re Stevenson, 2 Am. B. R. 66, J. O. D. Del ; s. c 94, Fed. 110. 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5 ; s c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 CI. 21 In re Folb. 1 Am. B. R. 23, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 22 In re Morris, 3 N. B. N. 260, R. O. S. D. Ga, 
 
 In re Boasberg, 1 Am. B. R. 353", R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re PolakofE, 1 Am. B. R. 358, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Baker-Ricketson Co., 97 Fed. 489, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
32 
 
 Cl. 23 InreCoe, Powers&Co.,l]Sr.B. N, 295, R. O. N. D. O.; s. c. 1 Am B. R. 375. 
 In re Headley, 2 N. B. N. 250, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 272 ; 97 Fed. 
 765. 
 
 Cl. 24 
 
 Cl. 25 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B N. 191, J. O. D. Ind ; s c. 93 Fed. 594. 
 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 301, R. O. N* D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R. O. S. D. O. 
 
 In re Coffin, 1 N. B. N. 507, R, O. E. J\. Tex ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 344. 
 
 In re Baker-Ricketson Co., 3 N. B. N. 133, J, O. D. Mass.; s c 97 Fed. 469. 
 
 Johnson vs. "Wald, 2 Am. B. R 84, C. C. A 5 ; s c. 93 Fed. 640. 
 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 123, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 812. 
 
 "Worden vs. Columbia Electric Co., 3 Am. B R. 187. J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Fort Wayne Electric Co vs. Columbia Electric Co , 96 Fed. 803, J. O. D Ind. 
 
 Cl. 26 
 
 Cl. 27 In re Rose, 1 N. B. N. 312, R. O. N. D. O ; s, c. 1 Am. B. R. OS. 
 In re Rouse, Hazard & Co , 1 Am. B. R. 231, J. O. N. D. 111. 
 In re Rouse, Hazard & Co., 1 Am. B. R. 234. C. C. A. 7. 
 In re Ger.-on, 1 Am. B. R. 351, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 333, R. O. N. D N. Y. 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 3 Am. B. R. 154, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 96 
 Fed. 950. 
 
 Cl. 28 
 
 Cl. 29 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 301, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Cl. 30 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Creation of Courts of Bankruptcy and their Jurisdiction. 
 
 SEC. 2 In re Lea Bros., 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va, 
 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 214, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 
 In re Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 328, li. O. E. D, Wis ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 
 In re Woodbury, 2 N. B. N. 284, J. O. D. N. Dak. 
 
 Schultz vs. National Bank of Aurora, 2 N. B. N. 320, J. 0. D. Ind. 
 
 Blake vs. Francis, 89 Fed. 691. 
 
 In re Brodbine, 93 Fed. 643, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Newbury, 97 Fed. 24, J. O W. D Mich. 
 
 In re Mason, 99 Fed. 256, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 1 In re Stokes, 1 N. B, N. 106, R. O. D. Wash.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Marine et al. Co., 1 N. B. N. 136, J. O. D. R. I. 
 In re Laskaris, 1 N. B. N. 209, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 480. 
 Davis vs. Bohle, 1 N. B. N. 216, C. C. A. 8. 
 
 In re Brice 1 N. B. N 310, J. O. S. D. la.; s c. 2 Am. B. R. 197 ; 93 Fed. 942. 
 In re Ray, 1 N. B. N. 336, R. and J. O. D. Wash.; s. c. 2 Am, B. R. 158. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408. R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Waxelbaum, 2 N. B. N. 103, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 267 ; 
 
 97 Fed. 562. 
 In re Berner, 2 N. B. N. 330, R. O. N. D. Ohio ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 325. 
 In re Sugenheimer, 1 Am. B. R. 425, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Grimes, 2 Am. B. R. 160, J. O. W. D. N C. 
 In re Clisdell, 2 Am. B. R. 424, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Marine Machine & C, Co., 91 Fed. 630, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Waxelbaum, 98 Fed. 589, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Ci 2 Ii re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. S. D, N. Y. 
 
 In re Woodruff, et al., 1 N. B. N. 423, J O. S D. Ga. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 317. 
 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 527, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank of Aurora, 2 N. B. N. 320, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Brodbine, 2 Am. B. R. 53, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Bruss-Ritter Co., 90 Fed. 651, J. 0. E. D. Wis. 
 
34 
 
 Cl 3. In re Streioheimer, 1 N. B. N. 21, J. O. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Abramson, 1 N. B. N. 23, R O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 44. 
 
 In re Gerson, 1 IST. B. K. 24, J. O. B. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Gutwillig. 1 N, B. N. 40, J. O. 8. D. N, Y. 
 
 In re Hopkins, 1 N. B. N. 41, J. O. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Etheridge Furniture Co., 1 N. B. N. 139, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 113 ; 93 Fed. 329. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 61, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 69, J. O. B. D. Mo. 
 In re Overstreet. 1 N. B. N. 408, R O. E D. Ark. 
 In re Fixen & Co., 1 N. B. N. 568, J O. 8. D. Cal.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 823 ; 
 
 90 Fed. 746. 
 In re Becker, 2 N. B. N. 245, J. O. E, D. Pa. 
 In re Schrom, 8 Am. B, R. 253, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Brodbine, 3 Am. B R. 53, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 98 Fed. 767, 
 In re BrussRitter Co., 90 Fed. 651, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 Mitchell vs. I'^cClare, 91 Fed. 631, J. O. "W. D. Pa. 
 In re Schrom, 97 Fed. 760, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Becker, 98 Fed. 407, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Woodbury, 98 Fed. 833, J. O. D. N. Dak. 
 
 CI. 4 In re McKee, 1 N. B. N. 139, Co. Ct. Ky. 
 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. B. D. Ark. 
 In re Rudnick Bros., 1 N. B. N. 376, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 Cl. 5 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 
 In re Fixen & Co., 1 N. B. N. 566, J. O. S. D. Cal.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 832. 
 
 In re Abrahamson, 1 Am. B. R. 44, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Etheridge Furniture Co., 1 Am. B. R. 113, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Brodbrine, 3 Am. B. R, 53, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 Cl. 6 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 316; 93 
 
 Fed. 594. 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 394. R. O. N. D. O. 
 
35 
 
 In re Karski, 1 N. B. N. 336, R. 0, E. 1). Wis.; a. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 
 Southern Loan & Trust Co. vs. Benbow, 1 N. B. N. 499, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Baudouino, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B, R 55. 
 
 In re Elliot, 2 N-. B. N. 350, R. 0. 8. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 78, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Slevers, 1 Am. B. R. 117, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Carter. 1 Am. B. R, 160, R. O. S. D. Ga. 
 
 Burnett vs. Morris Co., 1 Am. B. R. 229. J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 Lea vs. West, 1 Am. B. R. 261, J. O. B, D. Va. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R, 815, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Carpenter vs. O'Connor, 1 Am. B, R. 381, Ohio C. C. 
 
 In re Goldberg. 1 Am. B. R. 385, R. O. D, Utah. 
 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 388, C. C. A. 2. 
 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am B. R. 427, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Worland, 1 Am. B. R. 450, J. O. N D. la. 
 
 Mather vs. Coe. 1 Am. B. R 504, J. O. N. D. O. 
 
 In re Huddleston. 1 Am. B. R. 572, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 
 In re Fowler, 1 Am. B. R. 637, R. O. D. Conn. 
 
 In re Brodbrine, 2 Am. B. R 53, J. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 93 Fed. 643. 
 
 CI. 7 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 69, J. O. E. D. Mo. ; s. c, 1 Am. B. R. 117. 
 
 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 163, R. O. 8. D. Ga ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 160. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 167, R. O. N. D. K. Y. 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B, R. 215; 92 
 
 Fed. 594. ' 
 In re Huddleston, 1 NT. B. N. 214. R. O. N. D. Ala ; s. c. 1 Am. ,B. R. 573. 
 In re Fowler, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. D. Conn. 
 
 In re Kerski, 1. N. B. N. 328, R. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B, JST. 336, J. O. 8. D. Ohio ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R, 153 ; 94 Fed. 
 
 625. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. 0. B. D. Ark.; s. c. 3 Am, B. R. 487. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, ,1. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 636. 
 In re Newbury, 2 N. B. N. 56, J. O. W. D. Mich.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 158. 
 Murray vs. Real, 3 N. B. N. 164, J. O. D. Utah; s. c. 3 Am. B R. 284; 97 
 
 Fed. 567. 
 In re Schloerb, et al, 2 N. B. N. 234. J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Becker, 2 N. B. N. 345, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 in re Woodbery, 2 N. B. N. 284, J. O. D. N. Da. 
 
36 
 
 Schultz vs. National Bank of Aurora, S N. B N. 830, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Gutwlllig, 1 Am. B. R. 78. J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Burnett vs. Morrison, 1 Am. B. R. 229, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 Lea vs. West, 1 Am. B. R 261, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 315, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Carpenter vs. O'Connor, 1 Am. B. R. 381, Ohio C. C. 
 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 888, C. C. A. 2. 
 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 427, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Worland, 1 Am. B. R. 450, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Pittelkow, 1 Am. B. R, 472, J. O. B D. Wis. 
 
 In re Brooks, 1 Am. B. R, 531, J. O. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Fowler, 1 Am. B. R. 637, R. O. D. Conn. 
 
 In re Brodbrine, 3 Am. B. R 53, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Leidigh Carriage Co., vs, Stengal, 2 Am. B. R. 893, C. C. A. 6. 
 
 Southern Loan & Trust Co. vs. Benbow, 3 Am B, R. 9, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Smith, 93 Fed. 135, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Abraham, 93 Fed 767, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 CI. S I^ ^^ Soper, 1 Am. B. R. 193, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Wolpert, 1 Am. B. R. 436, R, 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Stein, 1 Am. B. R. 663, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 9 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 
 In re Rudnick, 1. N. B. N. 531, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. Am. B. R. 114 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 767. 
 
37 
 
 CI. 10 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 815, R. 0. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Slnith, 1 N. B. N. 533, J. O. W. D. Tex. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 190 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 791. 
 In re Langslow, et al., 1 Am. B.' R. 358, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Woodard, 3 Am. B, R. 339, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Grimes, 96 Fed 539, W. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 11 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 314, R. O. N. D. Ala ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 573. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 389 ; 
 
 Fed. 360. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Baudoulne, 1 N. B N. 506. J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 
 
 Fed. 536. 
 In re Bragg, 3 N. B. N. 83, R. O. S. D. Ala. 
 In re Camp, 1 Am. B. R. 165, J. O. N. D. Qa. 
 In re Tilden, 1 Am. B. R. 800, J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Scott, 1 Am. B R 553, J. O. N. D. Tex. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 3 Am B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5.; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 
 CI. 12 In re Rudnick, 1 N. B. N. 376, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 531 ; 93 
 Fed. 787. 
 In re Overslreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. 0. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Thomas, 1 Am. B. R. 515, J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Holman, 1 Am. B. R. 600, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 CI. 13 In re Houston, 1 N. B. N. 305. J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 107. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 In re McCormick, 3 K. B. N. 104, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 340 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 566. 
 In re Mayer, 3 N. B. N. 257, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 14 In re McKee, 1 K. B N. 139, S. C. Ohio. 
 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. B. D. Ark. 
 
38 
 
 Cl. 15 In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B, N. 40, J. O. S. D N. Y. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 78. 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 45, R. O. N. D. N. Y; s c. 1 Am. B. R. 315. 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 69, J. O, E. D. Mo.; s. c.'l Am. B. R. 117 ; 91 Fed. 
 
 366, 
 Blake vs. Francis- Valtntine Co., 1 N. B. N. 47, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Kletchka, 1 N. B. N. 160, J. O. S. D. N. Y.: s. o. 92 Fed. 901. 
 Carter vs Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 315. 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. K. 214, R. O. N. D. Ala. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 573. 
 la re Rudnick, 1 N. B. N. 376, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 293, J. O. N. D. Obio. 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 394, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 338, R. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 79. 
 In re Smith et. al., 1 N. B. N. 156, ,T. O. E. D. Ind. 
 In re Pruschen, 1 N. B. N. 526, R. O. B. D. La. 
 In re Fixen, I N. B. N. 568, J. O. 8. B. Cal.; s. c. 2 Am B. R. 822; 96 Fed. 
 
 748. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 Southern Loan and Tiust Co. vs. Benbow, 1 N. B. N. 499, J. O. W. D. N. C; 
 
 s. c. 96 Fed. 514. 
 In re Horgan, 2 K B. N. 283, C. C. A. 3 
 In re O'Brian, 3 N. B. N 312, R. O. N. D. N Y. 
 In re Lipke, 3 N. B. N. 347, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Carter, 1 Am. B. R. 160, R. O. S. D Ga. 
 In re Rous et al , 1 Am. B R. 231, J. O. N. D. la. 
 Lea vs. West, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 Carpenter vs. O'Connor, 1 Am. B. R. 381, Ohio C. C. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 388, CCA 3 ; s. c. 92 Fed. 336. 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 437, R. O. N. D N. Y. 
 In re Worland, 1 Am. B. R 450, J. O. N. D. la 
 In re Pittelkow, 1 Am. B R. 473, J. O. E. D Wis. 
 Mather vs Coe, 1 Am. B R. 504, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Fowler, 1 Am. B. R 637, R. O. D. Conn. 
 In re Brodbrine, 3 Am. B. R. 53, J. O. D. Mass.; s c. 93 Fed. 648. 
 In re Fellerath, 3 Am. B. R. 40, J. O. N. D. Ohio.; s. c. 95 Fed. 131 
 In re Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 9, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Friedman, 2 Am. B. R. 301, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Basch, 97 Fed. 761, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
89 
 
 CI. 16 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 
 In re McCormlck, 3 N. B. N. 104, J. O. S, D. N. Y.; s. c. 3. Am. B. R 340 ; 
 
 97 Fed. 566. 
 In re Mayer, 2 N. B. N. 257, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 17 In '■e Overstreet, 1 N. B N. 400, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 
 In re Lowensohn, 2 N. B. N. 316, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 299. 
 In re Kuffier, 97 Fed. 187. J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 18 In re Wolpert, IN B. N. 238, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. O. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, J O. "W. D. N C; s. c. 2 4m. B. R. 730 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 539. 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 1 N. B, N. 534, J. O. E. D. N. ; s. c, 96 
 
 Fed. 604, 
 In re Ghiglione, 1 Am. B. R. 580, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 19 In re Overstreet, 1 N. B. N. 408, R. 0. E. D. Ark. 
 In re Lowensohn, 3 N. B. N. 315, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Last para. In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 68, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 328, R. O. E. D. Wis ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 In re Booth, 1 N, B. N. 476, R. and J. O. N. D. Ga. 
 In re Overstreet. 1 N. B N. 408, R. 0. E. U. Ark.; s. c. 2 Am. B, R. 467. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 554, C. C. A. 2. 
 
SEC. 3. 
 Subd. a 
 
 40 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Bankrupts. 
 
 Cl. 1 Lea vs. West, IN. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va.; s. c. 1 Am. B. E. 361. 
 
 In re Curtis et al., 1 N. B. N. 163, J. O. S. D. 111. 
 la re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 293, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B, N. 301, E. 6. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 1 Am. B. E. 136. 
 In re Meyer et al , 1 N. B, N. 304, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Smith et al., 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind. 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, U. S. S. C; s. c. 3 Am. B. E. 463 
 In re Eichards, 3 N. B. N. 36, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 3 Am. B. E., 145 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 935. 
 In re Baker-Eicketson Co., 2 N. B. N. 133, J. O D. Mass.; s. c. 97 Fed. 489. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 2 N. B. N. 304, C. C. A. 3. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. E. 76. J, O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Sievers, 1 Am. B. E. 117, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 In re Fellerath, 3 Am, B. E. 40, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Pearson, 95 Fed. 435, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Lang, 97 Fed. 197, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Mercur, 95 Fed. 634, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 Cl. 2 Lea vs. West, 1 N. B, N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 In re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 292, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Smith et al., 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, E. O. S. D , Ohio ; s. c. 3 Am. B. E. 471. 
 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, U. S. S. C ; s. c. 2 Am. B. E. 463. 
 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 413. E. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Cooke vs. Bank, 1 N. B. N. 530, Sup C. N. Y. 
 
 Mather vs. Ooe, 1 N. B. N. 554, J. O N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Simonson et al., 1 Am. B. E. 197, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Bbert, 1 Am. B. E. 340, E. O. W. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Eome Mills, 3 Am. B. E. 133, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 812. 
 
 Johnson vs. Wald, 93 Fed. 640, C. C. A. 5. , 
 
 Goldman vs. Smith, 93 Fed. 182, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Eichards. 96 Fed. 935, C. C. A. 7. 
 
41 
 
 In re Baker-Rlcketson Co., 97 Fed. 489, J. 0. D. Mass. 
 In re Tirre, 95 Fed. 425, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Lange, 97 Fed. 197, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 3 Lea vs. West, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 In re Reisehman, 1 N. B. N. 305, J. O. E. D. Mo.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 17 : 91 
 
 Fed. 624. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 207, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 1. 
 In re Moyer, 1 N. B. N. 260, J. 0. B. D. Pa. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 577 ; 93 Fed. 188., 
 In re Ricks, 1 N. B. N. 292, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Smith et al. 1 N. B. N 356, J. 0,.E. D, Ind. 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, U. S. S. C. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R 463. 
 In re Nathan, 1 N. B. N. 563, J. O. D. Nev.; s. c. 92 Fed. 590. 
 Rumsey vs. N & M. Co., 2 N. B. N. 128, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 • Parmenter Manufacturing Co. vs. Stoover, 3 N. B. N. 174, J. O. C. C. A. 1 ; 
 s. c. 97 Fed. 330; 3 Am. B. R. 320. 
 In re Rhodes. 2 N. B. N. 301, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re EmsUe. 3 N. B. N. 324, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Nelson, 1 Am. B. R. 63, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R, 671, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s. c. 93 Fed. 436. 
 In re Ferguson, 3 Am. B. R. 586, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 95 Fed. 429. 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 133, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 812. 
 Blake vs. Francis- Valentine, 89 Fed. 691, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Clifife, 94 Fed. 354, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Richards, 96 Fed, 935, C. C. A. 7. 
 In re Baker-RicUetson Co., 97 Fed. 489, J. 0. D. Mass. 
 In re Burrus, 97 Fed. 936, J. O. W. D. Va. 
 In re Nelson, 98 Fed. 76, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 
42 
 
 CI. 4 In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 40, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 70 ; 90 
 
 Fed. 476. 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 68, J. O. E. D. Mo.; s. c. 1 Am. B. B. 117; 91 Fed. 
 
 366. 
 Lea TS. West, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 361 ; 91 Fed. 
 
 237. 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 309, J. O. E, D. N. C; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 158 ; 91 
 
 Fed. 103. 
 Davis vs, Bohle, IN. B. N. 316, J. O. C. C. A. 8 ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 412; 92 
 
 Fed. 825. 
 In re Fellerath, 1 N B. N. 292, J. O. K D. O.; s. c. 95 Fed. 121. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 302, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 2 Am. B. R. 839. 
 In re Smith, et al, 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 9; 93 Fed. 
 
 135. 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, C. C. A. 
 
 Sinsheiner v. Simonson, 1 N. B. N. 549, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 96 Fed. 579. 
 In re Baker-Ricketson Co., 3 N. B. N. 183, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 97 Fed. 489. 
 In re Emslie, 3 N. B. N. 334, J. O. 8. B. N. Y. 
 In re Etheridge Furniture Co. 1 Am. B. R. 117, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Romanow et al, 93 Fed. 510, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Simonson, 92 Fed. 904, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Curtis et al., 91 Fed. 737, J. O. 8. D. 111. 
 In re Curtis et al., 94 Fed. 630, C. C. A. 7. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 888, C. C. A. 2. ; s. c. 92 Fed. 337. 
 In re Curtis, 1 Am. B. R. 440, J. O. 8. D. 111. 
 In re Wilcox, 1 Am. B. R. 344, R. O. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 133, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c, 96 Fed. 812. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7.; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Ogles, 93 Fed. 43e, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Mercur. 95 Fed. 684, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. et al. vs. Stengel et al., 95 Fed. 637, 0. C. A. 6. 
 In re Hayden, 96 Fed. 199, J. O. 8. D. Fla. 
 
43 
 
 CI. 5 Lea vs. West, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 In re Bates Machine Co., 1 N. B. N. 135, J. 0. D. Mass.; s. c. 91 Fed. 625 ; 
 
 1 Am. B. R. 129. 
 In re Felleralh, 1 N. B. N. 292, J. O. N. D. Ohio; s. c. 95 Fed. 121. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 302, R. 0. N. D. N. Y.; s c. 
 
 1 Am. B, R. 186. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 "West vs Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, U. S. 8. C; s. c 2 Am. B. R. 463. 
 In re Lange, 2 N. B. N. 82, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 281 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 197. 
 In re Baker-Ricketson Co., 2 N. B N. 138, J. 0. D. Mass.; s. c. 97 Fed. 489. 
 In re Marine Machine Co. , 1 Am. B. R., 421, J. O. 8. D. N.Y.; s. c. 91 Fed. 630,. 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 123, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 812. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 125, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Sievers, 91 Fed. 366, J. 0. E. D. Mo.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 68 ; 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 117. 
 In re Curtis, 91 Fed. 737, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. b Parmenter Manufacturing Co., vs. Hamilton, 1 N. B. N. 8, J. O. D. 
 In re Lewis, 1 N. B. Jif. 556, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 91 Fed. 632. 
 In re Little River Co., 1 N. B. N. 306, R. & J. O. W. D. Ark. ; s. c. 92 
 
 Fed. 510. 
 In re Stevenson, 1 N. B. N. 313, J. O. D. Del. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 66 ; 94 
 
 Fed. 110. 
 In re Woodward, 1 N. B. N. 852, R. O. E. D. Tex. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 233. 
 In re Wright, 1 N. B. N. 381, J. O. N. D. Ga. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 364 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 687, 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 409, U. 8. 8. C. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 463. 
 In re Nathan, 1 N. B. N. 563, J. O. D. Nev. 
 
 In re Richards, 2 N. B. N. 38, C. C. A. 7. ; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 145 ; 96 Fed. 985. 
 In re Barker, 2 N. B. N. 858, R. O. D. Col. 
 Bray et al. vs. Cobb, 1 Am. B. R. 158, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 Lea vs. West, 1 Am. B R. 261, J. O. E. D. Va.; s. c. 1 N. B. TST. 79. 
 In re Wolf, 2 Am, B. R. 322, J. O. D. N..J. 
 In re Romanow, 92 Fed. 510, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Ghiglione, 93 Fed. 186, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; p. c. 1 N. B. N. 851 ; 1 Am. 
 
 B. R. 580. 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 121, J. O. N. D. O.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 292. 
 SiDsheimer vs. Simonson, 96 Fed. 579, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Rome Mills, 96 Fed. 812, J. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 Parmenter vs. Dayton, 97 Fed. 880, C, C. A. 1. 
 In re Dupree, 97 Fed. 28, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
44 
 
 Sllbd. c Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 309, J. 0. E, D. N. C. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153 ; 91 
 Fed. 103. 
 In re Ghiglione, 1 N. B N, 351, .1. O. S. D. N. Y.; s, c. 98 Fed. 186, 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O; E. D. Va.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 261. 
 Matber vs. Coe, 1 N. B. N. 554, J. O. N CO.; s. c. 93 Fed. 338. 
 In re Nathan, 1 N. B. N. 563, R. O D. Nev. 
 West vs. Lea, 3 Am. B. R. 468, U. 8 8. C; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 409. 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am B. R. 138, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; 96 Fed. 812. 
 In re Richards, 8 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 3 N B. N. 88 ; 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Simonson, 93 Fed. 904, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 Subd. d Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B, N. 309, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153 ; 91 
 Fed. 103. 
 In re Ghiglione. 1 N. B. N. 351, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 West vs. Lea, 1 N. B N. 409, U. 8. 8. C; s. c. 3 Am B. R. 463. 
 In re Richards, 8 Am. B. R. 145. C. C. A. 7.; s c. 96 Fed. 985. 
 In re Rome Mills. 96 Fed. 813, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 133. 
 In re Lange, 97 Fed 197, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Baker-Ricketson Co., 97 Fed. 489, J. O. D. Mass 
 
 Subd. e Iq re Williams, 1 N. B. N. 140, J. O. E. D. la 
 
 In re Wolpert, 1 N. B. N. 239. R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Ghiglione, 1 N. B. N. 351, J O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 580 ; 
 
 93 Fed. 186. 
 In re Abraham, 1 N. B. N. 381, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 266 ; 93 Fed. 767. 
 ' In re Rockwood, 1 Am. B. R. 373, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Kelly, 1 Ara. B. R. 806, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 3 N. B. N. 38 ; 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Kelly, 91 Fed. 504, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 
45 
 
 SBC. 4 
 Subd. a 
 
 Parmenter vs. Hamilton, 1 N. B. N. 8, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Bates Machine Co., 1 N. B. N. 135, J. 0. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 129 ; 
 
 91 Fed. 635. ' ' 
 
 Iq re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 389, J. O. D. Ky.; s c. 3. Am. B. R. 306 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 948. 
 la re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 335, R. O. Ind. Ter. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 356, J. 0. T). Ind.; s. c, 3 Am. B. R. 9 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 538, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 3 Am. B. R. 339 ; 95 Fed. 957. 
 Chemical National Bank vs. Heyer, 1 Am. B. R. 565, J 0. E. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 93 Fed. 896. 
 In re Pellerath, 3 Am. B. R. 40, J. 0. N. D. O.; s. p. 95 Fed. 121 ; 1 N. B N. 
 
 393. 
 In re San Gabriel, 3 Am. B. R. 406, J. O. S. D. Cal.; s. c. 95 Fed. 371 ; 1 N. B. 
 
 N. 390. 
 In re Jehu, 3 Am. B. R. 496, J. O. N. D. la. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 3 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 
 Subd. b Parmenter vs. Hamilton, 1 N. B. N. 8, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Neidlinger, 1 N. B. N. 193, R. O. E. D. Ga. 
 In re Norcross, 1 N. B. N". 368, R. 0. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 292, J. O. K. D. O.; s. c. 95 Fed. 121. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 K. B. N. 303, R. O N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 386, J. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 
 
 2 Am. B. R. 829 ; 95 Fed. 957. 
 In re Meyer, 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Brice, 1 N.B. N. 310, J. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 197 ; 93 Fed. 943. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 9. 
 In re Cain, 1 N. B. N. 389, R. & J. O. N. D 111. 
 In re San Gabriel, 1 N. B, N. 390, J. O. S. D. Cal.; s, c. 95 Fed. 371. 
 In re Bates Machine Co., 1 Am. B. R. 139, J. 0. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 
 
 135 ; 91 Fed. 625. 
 Chemical National Bank vs. Meyer, 1 Am. B. R. 565, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Fellerath, 2 Am. B. R. ,40, J. 0. N. D. O ; s. c. 95 Fed. 121 ; 1 N. B N. 
 
 293. 
 In re New York & W. "Water Co , 98 Fed. 711, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cain, 3 Am. B. R. 378, R O. N. D. 111. 
 In re Cameron Town Ies. Co., 96 Fed. 756, J 0. W. D. Mo. 
 
SEC. 5 
 
 In re Richman, 91 Fed. 634, J. O. E. D.Mo ; s. c. 1 N B. N. 205 ; 1 Am. B. 
 
 R. 17. 
 In re Marine Machine Co., 91 Fed, 630, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Siibd. a In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 25. 
 
 In re Langslow, 1 N. B. N. 233, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 258. 
 In re Reicliman et al., 1 N. B. IST. 288, J. 0. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 17 ; 
 
 91 Fed. 624. 
 In re Meyer et al., 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Altman, 1 N. B N. 858, R. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 689. 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O, D. Mass.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 117 ; 94 Fed. 
 
 84. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 515, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s c. 3 Am. B. R. 260. 
 In re Murray, 1 N. B. N. 532, J. O. N. D. la ; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 570 ; 3 Am. 
 
 B. R. 90. 
 In re Russell, 1 N. B. N. 532, J. O, N. D. la. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 91. 
 In re Webster et al., 3 N. B N. 54, R. O S. D N. Y. 
 In re Hlrsch, 3 N. B N. 137, J. 0. S. D. N'. Y.; s c. 3 Am. B. R 344 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 571. 
 In re Lentz et al., 3 N. B, N. 190, J. S D. O. 
 In re O'Brian, 2 N. B. N. 812. R. O. N. D, N. Y. 
 In re Elliot, 2 N. B. N. 350, R. O. 8. D. O. 
 Chemical National Bank vs. Meyer, 1 Am. B R. 56p, J. O. E, D. N. Y.; s. c 
 
 93 Fed. 896. 
 In re Levy, 2 Am. B. R. 31, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Stevenson, 3 Am. B. R. 330, J. O. N. D. N. C. 
 In re Wilson, 2 Am. B. R. 556, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 In re Donnegan, 2 Am. B. R, 638, J. O. D. N. Y. 
 In re Altman, 2 Am. B. R 407, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; 95 Fed. 263. 
 In re Hartman, 3 Am, B. R, 65, J. O. N. T). la. 
 In re McPaun, 3 Am B. R. 66, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Grimes, 94 Fed. 800, J. O. N. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. 0. 8. T>. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 358. 
 In re Gray et al., 98 Fed. 870, J. O. D. N. H. 
 
47 
 
 Subd. b In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. O. N. D. la ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R 35. 
 In re Meyer, et al. 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cameron Town Ins. Co., 1 N. B. N. 383, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 2 Am. 
 
 B. R. 373 ; 96 Fed. 756. 
 Inre Wilcox. IN. B.N. 494, J. O.D. Mass.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 117.; 94 Fed. 84. 
 In re Coe et al 1 Am. B. R. 375, R. O. N. D. O. 
 In re Collins, 3 Am. B. K. 1, R. O. S D, la. 
 In re Kenney 3 Am. B. R. 353, J. O. S. D. N. Y ; s. c. 97 Fed. 554. 
 
 Subd. c In re Freund, 1 N. B. N 105 R O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Coe et al. I N. B. N. 394, J. O. N. D. O. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re "Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O. D. Mass.; s c. 2 Am. B, R. 117.; 94 Fed. 
 
 84. 
 Chemical National Bank vs. Meyer, 1 Am. B. R. 565. J. O. E. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 93 Fed. 896. 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R. 689, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s c. 1 N. B. N. 358. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. Rep. 554. J. O. S. D. N. Y.: s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 353. 
 In re Murray, 96 Fed. Rep. 600, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 Subd. d In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R 35. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 117.; 94 Fed. 
 
 84. 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R. 689, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 N B. N. 358. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. S. D. N. Y.'; s c. 3 Am B, R. 353 
 
48 
 
 Subd. e In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, H. O. K D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B, E. 25. 
 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 117.; 94 Fed. 
 
 84. 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R. 689, R. O. N. D. N. Y ; s. c. 1 N. B. K. 358. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. 0. S D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B, R. 353. 
 
 Sul)d. f In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. 0. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 3 A. B. R. 117 ; 94 
 
 Fed. 84. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. K 304, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Jones, et al. 3 N. B. N. 193, J. O. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R. 689, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 N. B. K. 358. 
 In re Grimes, 3 Am. B. R 160, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 In re Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 667, J. O. D, Ind.; s. c. 95 Fed 369. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed, 554, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 853. 
 
 Subd. g In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B. N. 494, J. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 117. ; 94 Fed, 84. 
 
 In re Meyer et al. 1 N. B. N. 304, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Jones et al., 3 N. B. N. 193. J. O. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R. 689, R 6. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 358. 
 
 In re Mason, 3 Am! B. R. 60, R. O". D, R. I. 
 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. 0. 8, D. N. Y.; 3 Am. B. R. 853. 
 
 Subd. h In re Freund, 1 N. B. N. 105, R. O. N. D, la.; s. c. 1 Am. B R. 35. 
 
 In re Wilcox, 1 N. B N. 494, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 3 A. B. R. 117.; 94 Fed. 84. 
 
 In re Meyer, et al., 1 N. B. K. 304, J, O. E. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Altman, 1 N. B, N. 358, R, O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 A. B. R. 689. 
 
 In re Mercur, 1 N. B N. 537, J. O. E. D Pa.; s. c. 3 A. B. R. 626. 
 
 In re Donnegan, 1 N. B. N. 536, J. O. D. Mass.; s, c, 95 Fed. 438. 
 
 In re Meyers, 2 N. B. N, 111, J. O, 8. D, N. Y.; s, c. 3 Am. B. R. 707. 
 
 In re Hirsch, 3 N. B. N, 137, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Laughlin, 3 A. B, R, 1, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 589. 
 
 In re Murray, 3 A. B. R. 90, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 600. 
 
 In re Russell, 3 A BR. 91, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c, 97 Fed. 32. 
 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed, 554, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 353, 
 
49 
 
 SEC. 6 
 
 Subd. a In re LaDge, 1 N. B. N. 59, R. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 186. 
 
 Iq re Lange, 1 N. B. N. 6U, J. O. N. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 189 ; 91 Fed. 36 
 la re Tilden, 1 N. B. N. 134, J. O. S. D. la. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 300 ; 91 Fed. 500. 
 In re Alfred, 1 N. B. N. 136. R. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 243. 
 In re Camp, 1 N. B. N. 142, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 165 ; 91 
 
 Fed. 745. 
 In re Hopkins, 1 N. B. N. 71, R. 0. D. lud. 
 In re Hopkins, 1 N. B. N. 164, J. O. D. Ind, 
 
 In re Lynch, 1 N. B. N. 182, R. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 1 Am. B R. 245. 
 In re Garden, 1 N. B. N. 169, J. O. N. D. Ala.; s. c, 1 Am, B. R. 583. 
 In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 212, R. O. S. D. Tex.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 536. 
 In re Peterson, 1 N. B. N. 215, R. 0. E. D. Wis ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 254. 
 In re Brown, 1 N. B. N. 330, R. O. W. D. Pa.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 256, 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N B. N. 301, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 
 
 1 Am. B. R. 136. 
 In re Rennle, 1 N. B. N. 383. R 0. D. Ind. Ter.; s. c. 3 A. B. R. 182. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N, B. N. 385, J. O, E. D. N. C; s. c. 2 Am. B, R. 339 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 260, 
 In re "Woodruff, 1 N. B. N. 423, J. O. S. D. Ga,; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 679 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 317. 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 426, R. O. W. D. N. C; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 610. 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, J. O. W. D. N. C; s. c. 96 Fed. 539 ; 2 Am 
 
 B. R. 730. 
 In re Peterson, 1 N. B. N. 430, J. O. N. D. Cal.: s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 630 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 417. 
 InreSlsler, 1 N. B. N.471, J. O. W. D. Va ; s. c. 96 Fed, 402; 3Am, B R. 760. 
 In re Dawley, 1 N. B, N. 483, R, O. D. Vt. 
 In re Richards, 1 N. B. N. 487, J. 0. E. D. N. C; s. c 2 Am. B. R. 506 ; 94 
 
 Fed. 635. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y; s. c 3 Am. B. R 55; 95 
 
 Fed. 586. 
 In re Brown, 1 N, B N. 511, J. O. W. D. Pa, 
 In re Harrington, 1 N. B. N. 513. R, O. E, D. Tex. 
 In le Stevenson, 1 N. B, N. 581, J. O. E. D. N C ; s. c 93 Fed. 789 ; 2 Am, 
 
 B, R. 230. 
 In re Thomas, 1 N. B. N. 551, J. 0. D. Wash.; s. o. 3 Am. B, R, 99. 
 In re Griffith, 1 N. B. N. 546, R. 0. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Dawley, 1 N. B. N. 528, J. O. D. "Vt. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 496 ; 94 Fed. 795. 
 In re Daubner, 1 N. B. N. 530, J. O. D. Ore.; s. c. 96 Fed. .805. 
 In re Boston, 3 N. B. N. 19, R, O. D. Neb. 
 In re Boston, 3 N. B N. 20, J. O. D. Neb,; s. c, 98 Fed. 587. 
 In re Buelow, 3 N. B, N. 36, R. O. D. Wash. 
 In re Eggert, 3 N. B. N. 44, R. O. D. Wash. 
 In re Bragg, 3 N. B. N. 83, R. O. S. D. Ala. 
 In re Eastman, 3 N. B. N. 86, R. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Lentz, 2 N. B. N. 190, J. O. D. S, Da,; s. c. 97 Fed. 486. 
 In re Becker, 2 N. B. N. 302, R. 0. E, D, Pa. 
 In re Ross, 2 N. B. N. 218, R. O. E. D. Wash, 
 In le Buelow, 2 N. B. N. 230, J. O. D. Wash. 
 In re Morris, 2 N. B. N. 260, R. O, S. D. Ga; 
 In re Jones, 3 N. B. N. 396, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s, c. 97 Fed. 773 ; 8 Am. B, 
 
 R. 339. 
 In re O'Brien, 2 N- B. N. 312, R. O. N. D N. Y. 
 In re Coffman, 1 Am. B. R. 530. J. O. N. D, Tex,; s. c. 98 Fed. 422. 
 In re Miller, 1 Am. B. R. 647. R, O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Hatch, 2 Am. B. R. 36, R, 0. E. D, Mich. 
 In re Grimes, 2 Am. B. R. 160, J. O. W. D, N. C; s. c. 94 Fed. 800. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 3 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5 ; s, c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 In re Nelson, 3 Am. B. R. 556, J. O. W. D, Mo. 
 In re Overstreet, 3 Am. B. R, 486, R. 0..E D. Ark. 
 In re Woodard, 3 Am. B. R. 693, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 95 Fed. 955. 
 
50 
 
 In re Hill, 3 Am. B. R. 798, J. O. N. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 140, J. O. W. D. Tex.; s. c. 93 Fed. 791 ; 2 Am. 
 
 B. R. 190. 
 In re Hoag, 3 Am. B. R. 390, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 In re Collier, 98 Fed. 191, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Hill et al., 96 Fed. 185, J. O. N. D Ga. 
 In re Barrow, 98 Fed. 583, J. O. W. D. Va. 
 
51 
 
 SEC. 7 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 CI. 1 In re Parker, 1 N. B. N. 261, R. 0. D. Kan. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 615. 
 
 In re Pauly, 1 N. B. N. 405, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 808, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Abrahamson, 1 K. B. N. 23, R, O. N, D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Peters, 1 N. B. N. 165, R. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 248. 
 In re Rosstr, 96 Fed. 308, J. 0. E. D. Mo. 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed 803, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. B. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 4 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. 0. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 5 In re Fisher, 2 N. B. N. 221, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Tudor, 96 Fed. 904, J. O. D. Colo. 
 
 CI. 6 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. B. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 7 In re Ankeny, 2 N. B. N. 349, J. O. K. D. la, 
 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 CI. 8 In re Resler, 1 N. B. N. 280, R. and J. O. N. D. Minn.; s. c. 95 Fed. 804. 
 
 In re Harris, 1 N. B. N. 384, R. O. N. D. 111.; s. c. 2 Am. B. B. 359. 
 In re Ogles, 1 N. B. N. 400, R. O. W. D. Tenn. ; s. c. 2 Am, B. R. 514. 
 In re Pauly, 1 N. B. N. 405, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Nunn, 1 N. B. N. 427, R, O. S. D. Ga.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 664, 
 In re Walker, 1 N. B. N. 511, J. O. D, N. Dak.; s. c. 96 Fed. 450. 
 In re Averill, 1 N. B. N. 544, R. O. N. D, Ohio. 
 
 In re Kross, 1 N. B. N. 566. J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 187. 
 In re Oliver, 2 N. B. N. 212, R. O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Mackay, 1 Am. B. R. 593, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Brumelkamp, 2 Am. B. R. bl8. R. and J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re McNamara, 3 Am. B. R. 586, R, O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Schiller, 2 Am. B. R. 704, J. O. W. D. Va.; s. c, 96 Fed, 400. 
 In re Hirsch, 2 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s, c. 96 Fed. 468. 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. B. D. Wis. 
 
52 
 
 CI. 9 In re Price, 1 N. B. N. 131, J. O. S. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 319. ; 91 Fed. 
 
 635, 
 In re Scott, 1 N. B. N. 161, J. O. W. D. Pa ; s.c. 1 Am. B. R. 49. ; 95 Fed. 515. 
 In re Peters, 1 N. B. N. 165, R. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Soper, 1 N. B. N. 183, R. O. K. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 193. 
 In re Hathorn, 1 N. B. N. 361, R. O. E. D. La ; s. c. 3 Am. B. B, 298. 
 In re Ogles, 1 N. B. N. 400, R. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Rosser, 1 N. B. N. 469, J. O. B. D. Mo.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 755 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 305. 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 537, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Fixen, 1 N. B, N. 568, J. O. S. D. Cal. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 823; 96 Fed. 748. 
 In re Millen, 3 N. B. N. 69, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 336. 
 In re Tudor, 3 N. B. N. 16S, J. O. D. Colo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 943. 
 In re Schlesinger, 3 N. B. N. 169, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Bertier, 3 N. B. N. 268, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Abrahamson, 1 Am. B. R. 44, R. O. N. D N. Y. 
 In re Sapiro, 1 Am, B. R. 396, R. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Hayden, 1 Am. B. R. 670, J. O. S. D, N. Y. 
 In re Rosser (II.). 3 Am. B. R. 746, J, O. E. D. Mo. 
 In re Sapiro, 92 Fed. 340, J. O. D. Wis, 
 
 In re Jehu et al., 94 Fed. 638 J. O. N. D, la,; s. c, 3 Am. B. R, 498. 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Walker, 96 Fed. 550, J. O. D IT. Dak. 
 In re Mellen, 97 Fed, 326, J. O, S. D. N. Y. 
 
 SEC. 8 
 
 
 Subd. 
 
 a 
 
 SEC. 9 
 
 
 Sutad. 
 
 a 
 
 CI. 1 
 
 
 In re Parker, 1 N. B. N. 140, R. O. D. Kan ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 615 ., 
 N. 361. 
 
 IJS. B. 
 
 In re Summers, 1 N. B. N. 160, J. O.N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Grist, 1 Am. B. R. 89, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Scott vs. McAleese, 1 Am. B. R. 650, C. 0. A. 3. 
 
 In re Houston, 3 Am. B. R 107, J. O, D. Ky ; s. c. 94 Fed. 119. 
 
53 
 
 CI. 2 In re Graham, 1 N, B. N. 69, J. O. S. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 547, J. 0. D. Kan. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 101 ; 96 Fed. 954. 
 
 Subd. b In re Lipke, 3 N. B. N. 347, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 SEC. 10 
 Subd. a 
 
 SEC. 11 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 45, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 315. 
 
 Lea vs. West, 1 N. B. N. 79, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 163, R. 0. S. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Huddlesion, 1 N. B. N. 314, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 
 In re Holloway, 1 N. B. N. 364, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 659 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 638. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N 393, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Globe Cycle Works, 1 N. B. N. 430, R. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s c. 3 Am. B. R. 
 
 147. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 471. R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 67. 
 In re Pearson, 1 N. B. N 474, R. O. B. D. Pa. ; s, c. 3 Am. B. R. 819. 
 In re Kimball, 1 N. B. N. 515, J. O. W. D. Pa,; s. c. Am. B. R. 161. 
 Porter vs. Cummings, 1 N. B N. 530, J. O. Sup. Ot., Ga. 
 In re Challoner, 3 N. B. N. 105, J. O. N. D. 111. 
 In re Basch, 3 N. B. N. 133, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c, 3 Am. B. R, 335 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 761. 
 In re Geister, 3 N. B. N. 297, J. O. N. D. la. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 338 ; 97 Fed. 
 
 332. 
 In re McNamara, 2 N. B. N. 341, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Continental National Bank vs. Katz, 1 Am. B. R. 19, Sup. Ct. 111. 
 Reed vs. Cross, 1 Am. B. R. 34, Sup. Ct. 111. 
 In re DeLong, 1 Am. B. R. 66, R. O. N D. N. Y, 
 In re Grist, 1 Am. B R. 89, R. 0. N. B. N. Y. 
 In re Adams, 1 Am. B R. 94, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Haensell, 1 Am. B. R. 386, J. O. N. D. Cal. ; s. c. 91 Fed. 355. 
 In re McKee, 1 Am. B. R. 311, Co. Ct. St. Ky. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 388, C. C. A. 2 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 337. 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 427, R O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Kletchka, 1 Am. B. R. 479, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 92 Fed. 901. 
 Mather vs. Coe, 1 Am. B. R. 504, J. O. N. D. O. 
 In re Rogers, 1 A. Bm. R. 541, R. O D. Ky. 
 Scott vs. McAleese, 1 Am. B. R 650. C. C. A. 3 
 
 Victor et al. vs. Lewis et. aJ., 1 Am. B. R. 667, App. Div. N. Y. Sup. Ct. 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R. 671, J O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Sullivan, 2 Am. B. R 30, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Buntrock, 2 Am, B. R, 96, J. 0. N. D. la. 
 In re Houston, 2 Am. B. R, 107, J. 0. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Kenney, 2 Am. B. R. 494, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s, c. 1 N. B. N 401. 
 In re Jackson, 3 Am. B. R. 501, J. O. D. Vt. 
 Kelgan vs. King, 3 Am. B. R. 79, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Heinssfurter, 3 Am. B. R. 109, J. O. S. D. Ga. 
 
 Southern Loan & Trust Co. vs. Benbow, 8 Am. B. R. 9, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 In re Skinner, 3 Am. B. R. 163, J. 0. W. D. la. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 Blake vis. Francis, 89 Fed. 691, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Sievers, 91 Fed. 366, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 In re Brown, 91 Fed. 358, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
54 
 
 In re Nathan, 93 Fed. 590, J. O. D. Nev. 
 
 In re Pittelkow, 93 Fed. 901, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Easley, 93 Fed. 419, J. O. W. D Va. 
 
 Heath vs. Shaffer, 93 Fed. 647, J. O, N. D. la. 
 
 Camp vs. Zellars, 94 Fed. 799, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re Anderson, 97 Fed. 331, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
55 
 
 Subd. b In re Adams, 1 Am. B. E, 94, "R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Haensell, 1 Am. B. R. 286, J. 0. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Slevers, 91 Fed. 366, J. O. B. D. Mo. 
 In- re Price, 92 Fed. 987, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 606. 
 
 Subd. c 1° re McNamara, 2 IST. B. N. 341, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Adams, 1 Am. B. R. 94, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Haensell, 1 Am. B. R. 286, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Price, 1 Am. B. R. 606, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 92 Fed 987. 
 In re Slevers, 91 Fed. 366, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 Subd. d 
 
 SEC. 12 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sullivan, 1 N. B. N. 880, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rider, 1 JST. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rudnicli, 2 Am. B. R. 114, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Rider, 3 Am. B. R. 178, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 808. 
 
 Subd. b In re Sievers, 1 N. B N. 69, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Rider, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re "Walker, 1 N. B. N. 510, J. O. D. N. Dak.; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 Subd. c In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 69, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 Subd. d 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Rider, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rudnick, 93 Fed. 787, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 531. 
 
 CI. 3 
 
 CI. 3 
 
 Subd. e 
 
 SEC. 13 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Rider, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rudnick, 1 N. B. N. 531, J. O. D. Mass.; s, c. 2 Am. B. R. 114 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 787. 
 
SEC. 14 
 Subd. a 
 
 66 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 289, J. O. D. Ky. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 305 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 848. 
 In re Schreck, 1 N. B. N. 334, R O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Marshall Co., 1 N. B. N. 407, 8. O. D. Mass ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 653 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 419. 
 In re Rudnick, 1 N. B. N. 531, J. O. D. Mass. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 114 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 787. 
 In re Webb, 3 N. B. N. 14. R. 0. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 304. 
 In re Boasberg, 1 Am. B. R. 353, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Hixon, 1 Am. B. R. 610, J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Parker, 1 Am. B. R. 615, R. O. D. Kan. 
 In re Clisdell 3 Am. B. R. 434, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rennie, 2 Am. B. R. 183, R. O. S. D. Ind. Ter.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 335. 
 In re Mason, 99 Fed. 356, J. 0. W. B. N. C. 
 
 Subd. b 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 13, J. O. 
 
 In re King, 1 N. B. TST. 13, J. O. 
 
 In re Thomas, 1 N. B. N. 329, J. O. S. D. la ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 515 ; 93 
 
 Fed. 912. 
 In re Price, 1 N. B. N. 433, J.O.S. D. la. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 674; 96 Fed. 611. 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B N. 516. J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 707. 
 In re Holman, 1 N. B N. 553, J. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 92 Fed. 512. 
 In re Hixon, 1 N. B N. 326, J. O. 8. D. la,; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 610; 93 
 
 Fed. 440. 
 In re May, 2 N. B. N. 98, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Kaiser, 3 N. B. N. 123, R. & J. O. D. Minn. 
 In re Berner. 2 N. B. N. 368, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Deitz, 2 N. B. N. 125, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re MoBride, 3 N. B. N. 345, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Peters, 1 Am. B. R. 248, R. 0. D. Mass. 
 In re PolakofE, 1 Am. B. R. 358, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Schreck, 1 Am. B. R. 366, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 334. 
 In re Cohn, 1 Am. B. R. 655, R. O. N. D. Mo. 
 In re Lowenstein, 3 Am. B. R. 193, R. and J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 3 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5.; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 In re Rhutassel, 3 Am. B. R. 697, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 597. 
 In re Walther, 3 Am. B. R. 702, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Hirsch, 3 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Idzall, 3 Am. B. R. 741, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
67 
 
 In re Welse, 3 Am. B. R. 93, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Skinner, 3 Am. B. R. 163, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Marshall Co., 95 Fed. 419, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Heyman, 97 Fed. 195, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Black, 97 Fed. 498, J. O. K. D. Cal. 
 In re O'Gara, 97 Fed. 932, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Boasberg, 1 N. B. K. 133, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 353. 
 
 In re Holtz, 1 N. B. N. 204, J. O. S. D. N. T. 
 
 In le Stark, 1 N. B. N. 232, R. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R 180. 
 In re PolakofE, 1 N. B. N. 232, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 358. 
 In re Dews, 1 N. B. N. 411, J. O. D. R. I.; s. c. 2 Am. B, R. 483 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 181. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 536. 
 In re Holman, 1 N. B. N. 553, J. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 600. 
 In re Rhutassel, 1 N. B. N. 572, R. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Ramberger, 2 N. B. N. 95, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Webb, 2 N. B. N. 286, J. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 98 Fed. 404. 
 In re Schreck, 1 Am. B R. 366. R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cohn, 1 Am. B. R, 655, R, O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Schorer. 2 Am. B. R. 165, J. O. D. Conn.; s. c. 96 Fed. 90. 
 Sellers vs. Bell. 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5. 
 In re McNamara. 2 Am. B R. 566, R. 0. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rhutassel, 2 Am. B. R. 697, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 597. 
 In re Hirsch, 2 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s. c. 97 Fed. 571. 
 In re Idzall, 2 Am. B. R. 741, J. O. S. D. la. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 314. 
 In re Stark, 2 Am. B. R. 785, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 88. 
 In re Basch, 97 Fed. 761, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Roy 96 Fed. 400, J. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Crenshaw, 95 Fed. 632, J. O. S. D. Ala. 
 In re Cornell, 97 Fed. 29, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Skinner, 97 Fed. 190, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Carmichael, 2 Am. B. R. 615, J. 0. N. D. la. 
 
■ :'" 58 
 
 In re Hyman, 3 Am. B. R. 169, J. O. S. D. N, Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 195. 
 
 In re Lieber, 3 Am. B. R. 317, R. O. B. D. Pa. 
 
 In re McAdam, 98 Fed. 409, J. O. 8. D. K. Y. 
 
 In re Phillpps, 98 Fed. 844, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Holman, 93 Fed. 513, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 In re Hartman, 96 Fed. 594, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Meyers, 96 Fed. 408, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Black, 97 Fed 493, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 
 In re Hirsch, 96 Fed. 468, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476, R. and J. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Freund, 98 Fed. 81, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re DeLeeuw, 98 Fed. 408, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. e In re Lieber, 3 N. B. N. 21, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 SEC. 15 
 
 Subd. a InreRudnick, 1 N. B. N. 376, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 114; 
 Fed. 787. 
 In re Oliver, 3 N. B. N. 313, R. O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Peters, 1 Am. B. R. 348, R. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Deitz, 8 Am. B, R. 316, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
SEC. 16 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 59 
 
 In re De Long, 1 N. B. N. 36, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 Smith vs. Steinberg, 1 N. B. N. 240, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Marshall Co., 1 N. B. N. 407, J. 0. D. 
 
 Fed. 419. 
 In re Preund, 1 Am. B. R. 35, R. O. N. D. la. 
 
 s. 0. 3 Am. B. R. 653 ; 95 
 
 SEC. 17 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Anderson, 1 N. B. N. 48, J. O. D. Md. 
 
 In re O'Donnell, 1 N. B. N. 59, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Rogers, 1 N. B. N. 311, R. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Blumberg, 1 N. B. N. 358, R. 0. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 389, J, O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 948. - 
 In re "Woodard, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. E. D. K C; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 339 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 360. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 471, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 67. 
 In re Sisler, 1 N. B. N. 472, J. O. W. D. Va.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R, 760 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 403. 
 In re Van Orden, 1 N. B. N. 475, J. O. D. N. J.; s. c. 2 Am. B R. 801 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 86. 
 In re Rhutassel, 1 N. B. N. 572, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 697 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 597. 
 In re Houston, 1 N. B. K. 305, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 94 Fed. 131. 
 In re Marshall Co., 1 N. B. N. 407, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 547; J. O. D. Kan,; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 101. 
 In re Nahler, 2 N. B. N. 71, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 In re Freund, 1 Am. B. R. 25, R. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Scott, 1 Am. B. R. 553, J. O. N. D. Tex. 
 In re Sullivan, 2 Am. B. R. 30, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Bean vs. Justice, 2 Am. B. R. 163, Sup Ct. Mass. 
 In re Levy, 2 Am. B. R. 31, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Levy, 3 Am. B. R. 29, J. O. K. D. N. Y. 
 Mutual Reserve vs Beatty, 2 Am. B. R. 244, C. C. A. 9. 
 In re Laughlin, 3 Am.'B. R. 1, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c 96 Fed. 589. 
 In re Lewis, 91 Fed. 632, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Thomas, 92 Fed. 912, J. O. 8. D. la. 
 In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476, J. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
60 
 
 CI. 2 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B, N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 306. 
 
 In re Thomas, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 515. 
 In re Sullivan, 1 N. B. N. 360, R. O. N. D. N. Y.: s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 30. 
 In re Sisler, 1 N. B. N. 473, J. O. W. D. Va.; s. c. 96 Fed. 403. 
 In re Lazarovic, 1 Am. B. R. 476, R. O. D. Kan. 
 Packer vs. Whittier, 1 Am. B. R. 681, C. C. A. 1.; s. c. 91 Fed. 511. 
 In re Blumberg, 1 Am. B. R. 637, R. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 In re Houston, 3 Am. B. R. 107, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Carmiohael, 3 Am. B. R. 815, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 594. 
 In re Woorlard, 95 Fed. 360, J O, E. D. N. C. 
 In re Van Orden, 96 Fed. 96, J. O. D. N. J. 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Baker, 96 Fed. 964, J. O. D. Kan. 
 In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476, J. O. E. D. Tonn. 
 
 CI. 3 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. Am. B. R. 306. 
 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 294, R, O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Sisler, 1 N. B. N. 473, R. O. D. Kan. 
 
 In re Lazarovic, 1 Am. B. R. 476, R. O. D. Kan. 
 
 In re Thomas, 1 Am. B. R. 515, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 Packer vs. "Whittier, 1 Am. B. R. 631, C. C. A. 1.; s. c. 91 Fed. 511. 
 
 In re Blumberg, 1 Am. B. R. 637, R. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 3 Am. B. R. 306, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476, J. 0. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Woodard, 95 Fed. 360, J. O. B. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Van Orden, 96 Fed. 86, J. O. D. N. J. 
 
 In re Sisler, 96 Fed. 403, J. 0. W. D. Va. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Baker, 96 Fed. Rep. 954, J. O. D. Kan. 
 
CI. 4 
 
 t)l 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 206. 
 
 In re Slsler, 1 N. B. N. 472, J. O. W. D. Va.; s. c. 96 Fed. 402. 
 
 In re Lazarovic, 1 Am. B. R. 476, R. 0. D. Kan. 
 
 In re Thomas, 1 Am. B. R. 515, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 Packer vs. WWttier, 1 Am. B. R. 621, C. C. A. 1.; s. c 91 Fed. 511. 
 
 In re Blumburg, 1 Am. B. R. 627, R. 0. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 Claflin vs. Easton, 2 Am. B. R. 263, R. O. E. D. Tex. 
 
 In re Basch, 3 Am. B. R. 235, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; a. c. 97 Fed. 761. 
 
 In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476, J. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Woodard, 95 Fed, 260, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Van Orden, 96 Fed. 86, J. O. D. N. J. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Baker, 96 Fed. 954, J. O. D. Kan. 
 
62 
 
 SEC. 18 
 SuT)tl. a 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Courts and Procedure Therein. 
 
 In re Stevenson, 1 N. B. N. 213, J. 0. D Del. ; s. c. 95 Fed. 110. 
 
 In re Murray, 1 N. B. N. 510. J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 600. 
 
 In re Scherman. 2 N. B. N. 118, R. O E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Basch, 3 N. B. N. 132, J. O. S. D. N.. T. 
 
 In re Simonson, et al. 1 Am. B, R. 197, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 93 Fed. 904. 
 
 In re Lewis, 1 Am. B. R. 456, J. O S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Altman, 1 Am. B. R, 689, R. O. N. D. IST. Y. 
 
 In re Strait, 3 Am. B. R. 308, J. O N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Leldigh Carriage Co., 2 Am. B. R. 363, C. 0. A. 6. 
 
 Snbd b. Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 209, J. O. E. D. N. 0. 
 
 In re Simonson et al., 1 Am. B. R. 197, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 230 ; 
 
 93 Fed. 904. 
 Goldman vs. Smith, 1 Am. B. R 266, J. O D. Ky.; s. c. 93 Fed. 182. 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R. 671, J. O W. D. Tenn. 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs Sttngel, 95 Fed. 637, C. C. A. 6. 
 
 Subd. c i° re Nelson, 1 N. B. N. 567, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Simonson, 1 Am. B. R. 197, J. O. D. Ky ; s. c. 93 Fed. 904. 
 
 In re Brummelkamp, 3 Am. B. R. 318, R. & J. O. N. D, N. Y. 
 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengal, 3 Am. B. R. 383, C. C. A. 6. ; s. c. 95 Fed. 637. 
 
 In re Crenshaw, 3 Am. B. R. 633, J. O. S. D. Ala. 
 
 Subd. d Ii re Simonson, 1 Am. B. R. 197, J. O. D. Ky. ; s. c. 93 Fed. 904. 
 Goldman v. Smith, 93 Fed. 182, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 Subd. e In re Simonson, 1 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 197; 93 Fed. 
 Rep. 904. 
 
 Subd. f In re Polakoffi, 1 Am. B. R. 358, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 358. 
 
 In re Murray, 96 Fed. 600, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
63 
 
 Subd. g In re PolakofE, 1 N. B. N. 232, R O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 358. 
 In re Waxelbaum, 2 N. B. N. 228, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Kindt, 98 Fed. 408, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 SEC. 19 
 Subd. a 
 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 209, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153; 91 
 
 Fed. 102. 
 In re Murray 1 N. B. N. 570, J. O. N. D . la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 600. 
 In re Kindt, 2 N. B. N. 306, J. O. 8. D. la. 
 
 Packer vs. Whittier, 1 Am. B. R. 621, C. 0. A. 1.; s. c. 91 Fed. 511. 
 In re Cliffe, 2 Am. B. R. 317, J. 0. E. D. Pa. 
 
 Subd, b 
 Subd. c 
 
 SEC. 20 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Kimball, 2 N. B. N. 46, B. O. D. 
 In re Kindt, 2 N B. N. 339, J. & R. O S. D, la. 
 In re Sugenheimer, 1 Am. B. R. 425, J. O. 8. D. N. 
 In re Howard, 2 Am. B. R. 583, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Kindt, 2 N. B. N. 339, J. & R. O. S. D. la. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Sugenheimer, 1 N. B. N. 596, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 91 Fed. 144, 
 
 In re Kindt, 2 N. B. N. 339. R. O. 8. D. la. 
 
 Subd. b 
 
 SEC. 21 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Howard, 1 N. B. N. 488, J. O. N. D. Cal.; s. c. 95 Fed. 415. 
 
 In re "Walker, 1 N. B. N. 510, J. O. D. N. Dak.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 35 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 550. 
 In re Post, 1 N. B. N. 527, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 In re Walton, 1 N. B. N. 533, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Griffith, 1 N. B. N. 546, R. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 In re JefiEerson, 1 N B. N. 558, J. 0. D. Wash. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 174 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 826. 
 In re Fixen, 1 N. B. N. 569, J. O. 8. D. Cal.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 822 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 748. 
 In re Forest, 1 Am. B. R. 259, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 93 Fed. 190. 
 In re Hayden, 1 Am, B. R. 670, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
64 
 
 In re Jehu, 3 Am. B. E. 498, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 94 Fed. 638. 
 In re Mayer, 3 Am. B. R. 233, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 97 Fed. 338. 
 In re Millen, 3 Am. B. R. 326, J. O. S. D, N. Y. 
 In re Horgan, 3 Am. B. R. 353, C. C. A. 3 ; s. c. 98 Fed. 414. 
 In re Cliffe, 3 Am. B. R. 357, J. O. E. D. Pa.; s. c. 97 Fed. 540. 
 In re Fowler, 93 Fed. 417, J. O. W. D. "Wis. 
 
 Subd. b 
 Subd. c 
 Subd. d 
 Subd. e 
 Subd, f 
 Subd. g 
 Subd. h 
 
 SEC. 22 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 CI. 1 
 
 CI. 2 
 
 Subd. b 
 
 SEC. 23 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 67, J. O. E. D. Mo.; s. c. t Am. B. R. 117. 
 
 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 163, R. O. S. D. Ga.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 160. 
 
 In re Curtis, 1 N. B. N. 163, J. O. S D. 111. 
 
 In re Fowler, 1 N. B. N. 215, R. O. D. Conn. 
 
 In re Pittelkow, 1 N. B. N. 234, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Kerskl, 1 N. B. N. 326, R. O, E. D. Wis.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 336, J. O, S. D. Ohio. 
 
65 
 
 In re Pearson, 1 N. B. N. 474, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Jackson, 1 N. B. N. 531, J. 0. D. Vt. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich.; s. c. 97 Fed. 188. 
 
 Robinson vs. Wliite, 1 N. B. N. 513, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 97 Fed. 33. 
 
 In re Newberry, 2 N. B. N. 56, J. 0. W. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Gerdes, 3 N. B. N. 131, R. 0. S. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Woodbury, 3 N. B. N. 248, J. 0. D. N. Dali. 
 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N. 326, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Mitchell vs. McClure et al. 1 Am. B. R. 53, J. O. W. D. Pa. ; s. c. 91 Fed. 621. 
 
 In re Gutwilllg, 1 Am. B. R. 78, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Carter vs. Hobbs.'l Am. B. R. 215, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Burnett vs. Morris Co., 1 Am. B. R, 239, J. O. D. Ore.; s. c. 91 Fed. 365. 
 
 Lea vs. West, 1 Am. B. R. 261, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 Carpenter vs. O'Connor, 1 Am. B. R. 381, Ohio C. C. 
 
 In re Buntrock, 1 Am. B. R. 454, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. S Am. B. R. 98. 
 
 In re Brooks, 1 Am. B. R. 531, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 91 Fed. 508. 
 
 Hicks vs. Knost, 2 Am. B. R. 153, J. O. 8. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 266, C. C. A. 5; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 In re Adams, 3 Am. B. R. 415, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Crystal Bottling Co., 3 Am. B. R. 194, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 96 Fed. 943. 
 
 Subd. b In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 68, J. 0. E. D. Mo.; s. c. 91 Fed. 366 ; 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 117. 
 In re Scott, 1 N. B. N. 136, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 162, R. O. 8. D. Ga. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 160. 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.; s, c. 1 Am. B. R. 215; 92 
 
 Fed. 594. 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 214, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 
 Burnet vs. Morris Co., 1 N. B. N. 240, J. O. D. Ore.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 229. 
 In re Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 336, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 836, J. O. S. D. Ohio ; s. c. 3 Am. B.R. 153 ; 94 Fed. 
 
 625. 
 Heath vs. Shaffer, 1 N. B. N. 399, J. O. N. D. la. ; s. c. 93 Fed. 647. 
 In re Adairis, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. 0. E. D. Mich.; s. c. 97 Fed. 188. 
 In re Booth, 1 N. B. N. 477, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 770. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 536. 
 
66 
 
 In re Newberry, 2 N. B. N. 56, J. O. W. D. Mich.; s. c. 3 Am. B. B. 158 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 34. 
 In re Qerdes, 2 N. B. N. 131, R. O. 8. D. Ohio. 
 Murray vs. Beal, 2 N. B. N. 164, J. O. D. Utah ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 284 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 567. 
 In re Woodbury, 2 N. B. N. 284, J. O. N. D. Dak. ; s. c. 98 Fed. 833. 
 Schultzvs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N. 320, J. O. D. Ind. 
 Pepperdine vs. Headley, 98 Fed. 863, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Franks, 95 Fed. 635, J. O. S. D. Ala. 
 Louisville Trust Co. vs. Earks, 98 Fed. 456, J. O. D. Ky. 
 Mitchell vs. McClure, 1 Am. B. R. 53, T. O. W. D. Pa.; s. c. 91 Fed. 631. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 78, J. O. S, D. N. Y.; s. c. 90 Fed. 481. 
 Lea vs. West, 1 Am. B. R. 261, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 Carpenter vs. O'Connor, 1 Am. B. R. 381, J. O. Ohio C. C. 
 In re Goldberg, 1 Am. B. R. 385, R. O. D. Utah. 
 In re Buntrock, 1 Am. B. R. 454, J. O. N. D. la.; s.c. 3 Am. B. R. 98. 
 In re Brooks, 1 Am. B. R. 531, J. O. D, Vt. 
 In re Fowler, 1 Am. B. R. 637, R. O. D. Conn. 
 Shutts vs. First National Bank, 98 Fed. 705, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Hammond, 98 Fed. 845, J. O. D. Mass, 
 In re Adams, 2 Am. B. R. 415, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 In re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 366, 0. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 Robinson vs. White, 3 Am. B. R. 88, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 97 Fed. 33. 
 Camp vs. Zellars, 94 Fed. 799, C. C. A. 5. 
 Goodier vs. Barnes, 94 Fed. 798, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Richards, 96 Fed. 935, C. 0. A. 7. 
 In re Crystal Bottling Co., 96 Fed. 945, J. O. D. "Vt. 
 In re Cliffe, 97 Fed. 540, J. O. E. D. Pa, 
 In re Rouse, Hazard & Co., 91 Fed. 96, C. C. A. 7. 
 
67 
 
 Subd. c In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 68, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Carter. 1 N. B. N. 163, R. O. S. D. Ga.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 160. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 336, J. O. S. B. Ohio ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 153. 
 Goodier vs. Barnes, 3 Am. B. R. 838, J. O. N. D. N. Y,; s. c. 94 Fed. 798. 
 In re Newberry, 3 Am. B. R. 156, J. O. W. D. Mich. 
 Robinson vs. "White, et al., 97 Fed. 33, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 SEC. 24 
 Subd. a 
 
 Davis vs. Bohle, 1 N. B. N. 316, J. O. 0. C. A. 
 
 Schultz vs. First National Banli, 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Purvlne, 2 Am. B. R. 787, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 193. 
 
 Subd. b In re Rouse, et al., 1 N. B. N. 75, 0. C. A.; s. c. 91 Fed. 96. 
 
 In re Francis- Valentine Co., 1 N. B. N. 539, C. C. A. 9 ; s. c. 94 Fed. 798. 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 266, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 In re Purvlne, 3 Am. B. R. 787, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 193. 
 
 SEC. 25 
 Subd. a 
 
 Shultz vs. First National Bank, 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Richards, 2 N. B. N. 36, C. C. A. 7.; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Abraham, 93 Fed. 767, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 366. 
 
 CI. 1 Parmenter vs. Stoever, 2 N. B. N. 174, C. C. A. 1.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 220. 
 
 In re Smith, 1 Am. B. R. 37, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 266, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 In re Wright, 3 Am. B. R. 194, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 96 Fed. 830. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5 ; 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Rouse et al. 1 N. B. N. 75. C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 91 Fed. 96. 
 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 266, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 In re Wright, 96 Fed. 820, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 194. 
 
 Subd. b In re Peters, 1 Am. B. R. 248, R. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Rouse et al. 91 Fed. 96, 0. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 75. 
 
68 
 
 CI. 1 
 
 CI. 2 
 
 Subd. c 
 
 Subd. d 
 
 SEC. 26 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 96, J. 0. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B, N. 336, J. O. 8. D. Ohio ; e. c. 3 Am. B. R. 158 ; 94 Fed. 
 
 625. 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N, 320, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 266, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 Subd. b 
 Subd. c 
 SEC. 27 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. Rep. 923, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 345. 
 In re McLam, 3 Am. B. R. 245, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 97 Fed. 932. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 336, J. O. S. D. Ohio ; s. o. 2 Am. B. R. 153. 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind. 
 in re Abraham, 2 Am. B. R. 266 ; C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 SEC. 28 
 
 Subd. a In re Wolpert, 1 N. L. N. 338, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 SEC. 29 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sullivan, 1 N. B, N. 380, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Webb, 3 N. B. N. 14, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Goodier vs. Barnes. 2 Am. B. R. 328, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Purvine, 2 Am. B. R. 787, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 s. c. 94 Fed. 798. 
 
 Subd. b 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Polakoff, 1 N. B. N. 332, R. O. N. D. N, Y. 
 
 In re Huber, 1 N. B. N. 431, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Ray, 1 N. B. N. 536, J. O. D; Vt.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 37. 
 
 In re Kuntz, 1 N. B. N. 356, J. 0. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Thomas, 1 N. B N. 339, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 In re Schreck, 1 N. B. N. 884, R. 0. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 366. 
 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 535. 
 
 In re Meyers, 1 N. B. N. 515, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 707 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 408. 
 In re Rhutassel, 1 N. B. N. 572, J. O N. D. la.; s. c. 96 Fed. 597. 
 In re Webb, 2 N. B. N. 11, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Bamberger, 2 N. B. N. 95, R. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Hirsch, 3 N. B. N. 137, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 344. 
 In re Freund, 2 N. B. N. 236, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
69 
 
 In re De Leeuw, 2 N. B, N. 267, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Berner, 2 N. B. N. 268, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Langslow, 1 Am. B. R. 258, J. O. N. D. K. Y. 
 
 In re Lowenatein, 2 Am. B. R, 193, R. & J. 0. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Dows, 2 Am. B. R. 483, J. 0. D. R. I. 
 
 Sellers, vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A 5. 
 
 In re McNamara 2 Am. B. R. 566, R. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Hirsch, 2 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s. c. 96 Fed. 468. 
 
 In re Idzall, 2 Am. B. R. 741, J. O. 8. D. la. 
 
 In re Skinner, 3 Am. B. R. 163, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 97 Fed. 190. 
 
 In re Welsh, 3 Am. B, R. 93, J. O. S. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Cornell, 3 Am. B. R. 172, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 29. 
 
 In re Morrow, 3 Am. B. R. 236, J. O. D. Cal. 
 
 In re Hyman, 3 Am. B. R. 169, J. 0. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 195. 
 
 In re O'Gara, 3 Am. B. R. 849, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 In re Kamsler, 97 Fed. 194, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Brooks, 91 Fed. 508, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
 In re Purvine, 96 Fed. 193, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re Scheslnger, 97 Fed. 930, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Schreck, 1 N. B. N. 334,. R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Bushnell, 1 N. B. N. 538, R. O. D. N. J. 
 In re Strouse, 2 N. B. N. 64, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Bamberger, 2 N. B. N. 95, R. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Kamsler, 2 N. B. N. 97, R. and J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 194. 
 In re Williams, 2 N. B. N. 206, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Freund, 2 N. B. N. 236, J. 0. N. D. N" Y. 
 In re McAdam, 2 N. B. N. 256, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re De Leeuw, 2 N. B. N. 267, J. O. 8. D. N.Y. 
 In re Webb, 2 N. B. N. 11, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
70 
 
 In re Crenshaw, 2 Am. B. R. 633, J. O. S. D, Ala.; s. c. 95 Fed. 683. 
 
 In re Lowenstein, 3 Am. B. R. 193, R. and J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re McNamara, 3 Am. B. R. 566, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Hirsch, 2 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Skinner, 3 Am. B. R. 163, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Welsh, 3 Am. B. R. 93, J. O. S D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Roy, 3 Am. B. R. 37, J. O. D. Vt. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 400. 
 
 In re Thomas, 92 Fed 912, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 In re Purvine, 96 Fed. 193, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597. J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Deitz, 2 N. B. N. 125. J. O. S, D, N. Y. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 CI. 3 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. D. N. la. 
 
 CI. 4 In re Deitz, 2 N. B. N. 125, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 97 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 CI. 5 
 Subtl. c 
 CI. 1 
 CI. 2 
 CI. 3 
 Subd. d 
 
 In re Rhutassel, 96 Fed. 597, J. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Webb, 3 Am. B. R. 204, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
SEC. 30 
 Subd. a 
 
 71 
 
 In re Stevenson, 1 N. B. N. 313, J. O. D. Del.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 66; 94 Fed. 
 
 110. 
 In re Strait, 1 N. B. N. 854, R. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 308. 
 In re Paige, 3 N. B. N. 110, J, 0. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Lewis, 91 Fed. 683, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 Matlier vs. Coe, 92 Fed. 888, J. 0. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 SEC. 31 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Stevenson, 1 N. B. N. 318, J. O. D. Del.; s. c. 3. Am. B. R. 66; 94 Fed. 
 
 110. 
 In re Dupree, 1 N. B. N. 513, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 SEC. 32 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Waxelbaum, 3 N. B. N. 228, J. O. S. D. N. Y.: s. c. 98 Fed. 589. 
 
72 
 
 SEC. 33 
 
 Sabd. a 
 SEC. 34 
 Subcl. a 
 CI. 1 
 CI. 2 
 SEC. 35 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 CI. 2 
 CI. 3 
 CI. 4= 
 SEC. 36 
 
 Sal>d. a 
 SEC. 37 
 SuT>d. a 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Officers, Their Duties and Compensation. 
 
 In re Richard, 1 N. B. N. 487, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 309, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153. 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 Am. B. R. 153, J, O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 309. 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co, 96 Fed. 950, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 K. B. N. 309, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153. 
 In re Cameron Town Iris. Co., 96 Fed. 756, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 
 SEC. 38 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Northrop, 1 Am. B. R. 427, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rogers, 1 N. B. N. 311, R. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 45, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Mussey, 3 N. B. N. 113, R. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Polakoff, 1 Am. B. R. 358, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Kaiser, 3 N. B. N. 133, R. and J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 In re Sapiro, 1 Am. B. R. 296, H. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Oliver, 3 Am. B. R. 783, J. 0. N. D. Cal.; s.c. 96 Fed. 85. 
 
73 
 
 CI. 3 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 162, R. 0. S. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 214, R. 0. N. D, Ala.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 672. 
 
 In re Tudor, 2 N. B. N. 168, J. 0. D. Colo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 942. 
 
 In re Sleshinger, 2 N. B. N. 169, J. 0. S. D. N. T.; s. c. 97 Fed. 930. 
 
 CI. 4 In re Long, 1 N. B. N. 12 (Note). 
 
 In re Drake, 1 N. B. N. 12 (Note). 
 In re Soper et al. 1 N. B. N. 182, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Huddleston, 1 N. B. N. 214, R. O. N. D. Ala.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 572. 
 In re Rudnick, 1 N. B. N. 276, (Note) J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 114 ; 
 
 1 N. B. N. 531 ; 93 Fed. 787. 
 In re Kerskl, 1 N. B. N. 326, R. O. E. D. Wis ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 79. 
 In re Purvine, 96 Fed. 192, O. C. A. 5. 
 In re Rosser, 96 Fed. 308, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 In re Mayer, 98 Fed. 839, J. O. E. D. "Wis. 
 
 CI. 5 
 SEC. 39 
 Sulid. a 
 
 CI. 1 In re Waiszawiak, 1 N. B. N. 135, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Laskaris, 1 N. B. N. 209, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Silverman, 1 N. B. N. 287, R. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 15. 
 In re Fort "Wayne Co. 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B R. 706 ; 
 
 94 Fed. 109. 
 In re Barber, 1 N. B. N. 559, J. O. D. Minn.: s. c. 97 Fed. 547. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Ankeny, 1 N. B. N. 511, R. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Weinmann, 2 N. B, N. 51, R. O. B. D. Pa. 
 In re Mackey, 1 Am. B. R. 593, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cliffe, 2 Am. B. R. 317, J. 0. E. D. Pa. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 In re Mercur, 2 Am. B. R. 636, J. O. E, D. Pa. 
 In re Lange, 3 Am. B. R. 231, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Brummelkamp, 95 Fed. 814, J. O, N. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 3 
 CI. 4 
 CI. 5 
 
 CI. 6 
 
74 
 
 CI. 
 
 7 
 
 CI. 
 
 8 
 
 CI. 
 
 9 
 
 CI. 
 
 10 
 
 Subd 
 
 L. b. 
 
 CI. 
 
 1 
 
 CI. 
 
 2 
 
 CI. 
 
 3 
 
 SJEC. 40 
 
 SulE>d 
 
 i. a 
 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 209, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 Fed. 103. 
 
 s. c. 1 Am. B. B. 153 ; 91 
 
 In re Langslow, 1 N. B: N. 232, J. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 258. 
 In re Fort Wayne, Co., 1 N. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. Am. B. R. 706 ; 
 
 94 Fed. 109. 
 In re Rung, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 620. 
 In re Coffin, 1 N. B. N. 50.7, R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 344. 
 In re Barber, 1 N. B. N. 559, J. O. D. Minn., s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306 ; 97 Fed. 
 
 547. 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 323, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Fielding. 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. W. D. Mo.; e. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 94 Fed. 801, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 SuDd. b 
 Subd. c 
 SEC. 41 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 3 N. B. N. 33, J. O. N. D N. C. 
 
 In re Rosser, 1 N. B. N. 469, J. O. E. D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 308. 
 
 In re Mayer, 2 N. B. N. 257, J. O. E. D. "Wis. 
 
 In re Purvine, 2 Am. B. R. 787, C. C. A. 5.; s. c. 96 Fed. 192. 
 
 CI. 
 
 2 
 
 CI. 
 
 3 
 
 CI. 
 
 4 
 
 Proviso. 
 
 In re Tudor, 1 N. B. N. 476, J. O. D. Cal. 
 
 In re Sapiro, 1 Am. B. R. 296, R. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
75 
 
 Subd. B In re Rosser, 1 N. B. N. 469, J. O. E. D. Mo. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 746 ; 96 Fed. 
 308. 
 Id re Sapiro, 1 Am. B. R. 296, R. 0. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Purvlne, 3 Am. B. R. 787, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 192. 
 
 SEC. 42 
 Subd. a 
 Subd. b 
 Subd. c 
 
 SEC. 43 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Kuffler, 2 N. B. N. 29, .1. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 209, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 Fed. 102. 
 
 s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 153 : 91 
 
 SEC. 44 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 404, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rung, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 620. 
 
 In re Lament, 2 N. B. N. 291, R. O. N. D. 111. 
 
 In re Lewensohn, 2 N. B. N. 815, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 299 ; 
 
 98 Fed. 576. 
 In re Kuffler 3 Am. B. R. 162, J. O, S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 2 N. B. N. 39. 
 In re Smith, 93 Fed. 791, J. O W. D. Tex. 
 In re Blankfein, 97 Fed. 191, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 SEC. 45 
 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 136, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 37. 
 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 209, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Lewensohn, 2 N. B. N. 315, J. O. 8. D N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 299. 
 
 CL 3 
 
 In re Woodbury, 2 N. B. N. 284, J. O. D. N. Dak. 
 
SEC. 46 
 Subd. a 
 
 SEC. 47 
 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 76 
 
 In re Kuffler, 2 N. B. N. 29, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Wright, 3 Am. B. R. 407, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. 0. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 30e, 93 Fed. 
 
 948. 
 In re Woodard, 2 Am. B. R. 339, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Rung, 2 Am. B. R 620, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Stein, 94 Fed. 134, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Carter, 1 N. B. K. 162, R. O. S. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Holloway. 1 N. B. 364, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 93 Fed. 638 ; 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 659. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 289, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 206 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 948. 
 In re Stela, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind. ; a c. 1 Am. B. R. 663. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. N. D. N. C; s. c. 95 Fed. 260. 
 In re Pearson, 1 N. B. N. 474, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 536. 
 In re Plummer, 3 N. B. N. 392, R. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 320. 
 In re Cohn, 3 N. B. N. 399, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 Scliultz V8 First National Bank. 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5.; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 In re Tudor, 2 Am. B, R. 808, J. O. D. Colo. 
 In re Jaclison, 94 Fed. 797, J. O D. Va. 
 
 CI. 3 
 CI. 4 
 CI. 5 
 CI. 6 
 
 CI. 7 
 CI. 8 
 CI. 9 
 
 In re Baginsky, 2 Am. B. R, 243, J. O. E. D, La. 
 In re Stein, 1 Am. B. R. 663, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Stein, 1 Am. B. R. 662, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
77 
 
 CI. lO In re Grimes, 2 Am. B. R. 730, J. 0. W. D. N. C; s. c. 1 N. B, N. 516 ; 96 
 Fed, 529. 
 
 CI. 11 In re Camp, 1 N. B. N, 143, J. 0, N. D. Ga.; a. c. 1 Am. B. R. 165 ; 91 Fed. 
 
 745. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N. B, N. 385, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 95 Fed. 360. 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 486, R. O, W. D. K. C; a. c. 3 Am. B. R. 610. 
 In re Nunn, 1 N. B. N. 437, R. O. S. D. Ga.; s. c, 2 Am. B. R 664. 
 In re Peterson, 1 N. B. L. 430, J. O. N. D. Cal.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 630; 95 
 
 Fed. 417. 
 In re Brown, 1 N. B N. 511, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re McBrlde, 3 N. B. N. 345, J. O. E. D. N, C. 
 In re Grimes, 3 Am. B. R. 730, J. O. W. D. N. C; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 516 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 529. 
 Sellers vs. Bali, 3 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 In re Smith, 3 Am. B, R. 190, J. 0. W. D. Tex.; s. c. 93 Fed. 791 ; 1 N. B. 
 
 N. 532. 
 
 Subd. b 
 
 SEC. 48 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Rung, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am B. R. 630, 
 
 In re Coffln. 1 N. B. K. 507, R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 344. 
 
 In re Barber, 1 N. B. N. 559, J. 0. D. Minn. ; s. c, 97 Fed. 547. 
 
 In re Plummer. 3 N. B. N. 293, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 320. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 332, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Mitchell, 1 Am. B. R. 687, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Fielding, 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 3 Am. B. R. 154, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 
 
 Fed. 950. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 94 Fed, 801, C. C. A. 5. 
 
 Subd. b In re Rung, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Iii re Carolina Cooperage Co., 3 N. B. N. 33, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Subd. C In re Rung, 1 N. B. N. 406, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
78 
 
 SEC. 49 
 Subd. a 
 
 SEC. SO 
 Subd. a 
 Subd. b 
 Subd. c 
 Subd. d 
 Subd. 6 
 Subd. f 
 Subd. g 
 Subd. h 
 Subd. i 
 Subd. j 
 Subd. k 
 
 In re Lewensobn, 2 N. B. N. 315, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c, 3 Am. B. R. 299 ; 
 
 In re Kalter, 2 Am. B. R. 590, R. 0. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Kalter, 2 Am. B. R- 590, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Kalter, 2 Am. B. R. 590. R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Kalter, 3 Am. B. R. 590, R. O. E, D. Pa 
 
 In re Lowensohn, 3 N. B. N. 315, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 299. 
 
 Subd. I 
 
 Subd. m 
 
 SEC. 51 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Matthews, 3 Am. B. R. 265, J. O. S. D. la. 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 91 Fed. 102, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Collier, 1 Am. B. R. 182, J. O. W. D. Tenn, ; s. c. 93 Fed 191. 
 
 Anonymous, 2 Am. B. R. 537, J. O D. Wash. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 3 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 94 Fed. 801. 
 In re Matthews, 97 Fed. 773, J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Gay, 98 Fed. 870, J. O. D. N. H. 
 
 CI. 3 
 CI. 4 
 SEC. 52 
 
 Subd. a Sellers vs. Bell, 94 Fed. 801. C. C. A. 5. 
 
79 
 
 Subd. b 
 SEC. 53 
 
 Subd. a 
 SEC. 64 
 
 Subd. a 
 SEC. 55 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 Subd. b 
 
 In re Walker, 1 N. B. N. 511, J. O. D. N. Dak., s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Stein, 1 Am. B. R. 663, J. 0. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Gerson, 3 Am. B. R. 353,, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Sullivan, 3 Am. B. R. 648, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. c 
 Subd. d 
 Subd. e 
 Subd. f 
 
 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 389, .T. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 94 Fed. 134. 
 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B, N. 404, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 648. 
 
 SBC. 56 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Folb, 1 N. B. N. 134, R. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 91 Fed. 107. 
 
 In re Walker, 1 N. B. N. 510, J. O. D. N. Dak.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 35. 
 
 In re Blankfein, 3 N. B. N. 49, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 191. 
 
 Subd. b Carter va. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 93 Fed. 594. 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 313, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rhoades, 3 N. B. N. 178, B. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Coe, 1 Am. B. R. 375, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Fielding, 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 In re Kolb, 91 Fed. 107, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 SBC. 57 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Gutwillig. 1 N. B. N. 40, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Soper, 1 N. B. N. 183, R. O. K D. N. Y. 
 
 In re JeflEerson, 1 N. B. N. 389, J. 0. D. Ky.; s. c. Am. B. R. 306 ; 93 Fed. 948. 
 
 In re Scott, 1 N. B N. 403, J. O. N. D. Tex.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R 553 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 418. 
 In re Ankeny, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. 0. N. D. la. 
 In re Friedman, 1 Am. B. R. 510, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Lipman, 3 Am. B. R. 46, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
80 
 
 In re Wrestler, 2 Am. B. R. 166, R. O. D. Minn.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 602. 
 In re Heinsfurter, 3 Am. B. R. 133, J. O. B. D. la. 
 In re Richards, 94 Fed. 633, J. O. B. D. N. C. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. b In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 289, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Ankeny, 1 N. B. N. 482, R, O. N. D. la. 
 In re "Watson, 3 N. B. N. 307, R. O. D. Mass.; s. o. 3 N, B. N. 308. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. c In re Bingham, 3 Am. B. R. 223, J. O, D. Vt. 
 
 In re Rider, 3 Am. B. R. 178, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 s. c. 96 Fed. 811. 
 
 Subd. d In re Ankeny, 1 N. B. N. 482, R. O. N. D.' la. 
 In re Kimball, 2 N. B. N. 46, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Horgan, 2 N. B N. 53, J. O. S. D. N, Y. 
 In re Headley, 2 N. B. N. 250. J. O. "W. D. Mo.; s. c. 97 Fed. 765. 
 In re Friedman, 1 Am. B. R. 510, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rider, 3 Am. B. R. 192, J. O. N. D. N Y.; s. c. 96 Fed, 811. 
 In re McAdam, 98 Fed. 409, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. e Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind.. s. c. 92 Fed. 594. 
 
 In re Coe, 1 N. B N. 295, R. O. N. D. Ohio ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 375. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 312, R. O. N. D N. Y. 
 
 In re Booth, 2 Am. B. R, 770, J. O. N. D. Ga. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 943. 
 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Headley, 97 Fed. 765, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Falls City Shirt Mf 'g Co. 98 Fed. 592, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 Subd. f In re Ankeny, 1 N. B. N. 511, R. O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D: N. Y. 
 
81 
 
 Subd. g In re Leeman, 1 N. B. N. 331, H & J. O. D. Mo.; 8. c. 3 Am. B. R. 52, 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R. O. S, D. Ohio ; s, c. 2 Am. B. R. 471. 
 In re 8tendts, 1 N. B. N, 509, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 557, J. 0. E. D. N. C; s. c. 96 Fed. 821. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N. 7. J. O, 8, D. Cal. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N, 8, R, 0. S D. Cal. 
 In re Conhaim, 2 N. B. JST. 148, J. O. D. Wasli,; s, c. 8 Am. B. R. 249; 97 
 
 Fed. 933. 
 In re Wise, 2 N. B. N. 151, R 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Baker, 2 N. B. N 195, R O. E. D. Tex. 
 In re Folb, 1 Am. B. R 33, J, O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 91 Fed. 107. 
 In re Curtis, 1 Am. B. R. 440, J. O. S. D. 111. 
 In re Romanow, 1 Am. B. R. 461, J, O. D. Mass. 
 In re Wilcox, 1 Am. B B. 544. R. O. D. Tenn. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 506, J. 0. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Worden vs. Col. Elec. Co., 3 Am. B. R. 186, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 96 Fed. 803. 
 In re Helnsfurter, 97 Fed. 198, J. O. 8. D. 
 in re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Snbd. li Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind. ; s. c. 93 Fed. 594. 
 In re Pittelkow, I N. B. N. 234, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 313, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Coffin, 1 N. B. N. 507, R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 2 Am. B R. 344. 
 In re Friedman, 1 Am. B. R. 510, R, O. S. D. Ga. 
 In re Booth, 2 Am. B, R, 774, J. O. N. D. Ga ; s. o. 96 Fed. 948. 
 In re Kolb, 91 Fed. 107, J. O. E- D. N. C. 
 In re Brooks, 91 Fed. 508, J. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. i In re Mason, 1 N. B. N. 381, R. O. D. R, I. ; s. c, 2 Am. B. R. 60. 
 
 In re Heyman, 3 Am. B. R. 651, J. O. S. D. N. Y.: s. c. 95 Fed. 800. 
 In re Richards, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. j In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 547, J. O. D. Kan.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 101 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 954. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
82 
 
 Subd. k In re Smith, 3 Am. B R. 648, B. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Wood, 3 Am. B. R. 395, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Lipman, 94 Fed. 356, J. O. S. D. N. T. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. T. 
 
 Subd. 1 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 Subd. m In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 136, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rider, 96 Fed. 811, J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. n In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 94 Fed. 134 ; 1 Am. B. R. 663. 
 In re Rider, 3 Am. B. R. 178, J. O. N. D. K. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 811. 
 
 SEC. 58 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Price, 1 N. B. N. 131, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 419 ; 91 
 
 Fed. 635. 
 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, .1. O. D. Ind., s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663 ; 94 Fed. 134. 
 In re Abrahamson, 1 Am. B. R. 44, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Bray vs. Cobb, 1 Am, B. R. 153, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Stotts, 1 Am. b'. R. 641, J. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 93 Fed. 438. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Stein. 1 N. B. IST. 339. J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339. J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 4 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Groves, 3 N. B. N. 30, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 CI. 5 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 389, J. O. D. Ind. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663. 
 
 CI. 6 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 7 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 CI. 8 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Newstader vs. Chicago Dry Goods Co., 1 N. B. N. 552, J. O. D. Wash.; 
 3 Am. B. R. 96 ; 96 Fed. 830. 
 
 Subd. b In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663. 
 
 Subd. c In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. 0. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663; 94 Fed. 134. 
 
 In re Schiller, 3 Am. B. R. 704, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
SEC. 5J> 
 
 Subd. a 
 
 83 
 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 Am. B. R. 136, R. O. N. D, N. Y. 
 
 Subcl. h In re Romanow, 1 N. B. N. 313, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 461; 92 
 
 Fed. 510. 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co., 1 N. B. N. 302, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Beddingsfleld, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 96 Fed. 190; 2 Am. 
 
 B. R, 855. 
 In re Mercur, 1 N. B. N. 527, J. O. E. D. Pa ; s c.2 Am. B. R. 826; 95 Fed. 684. 
 Levinson vs. SImonson, 1 N. B. N. 649, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Stevenson, 1 N. B. N. 313, J. O. D. Del. 
 Neustadter vs. Chicago Dry Goods Co , 96 Fed. 830, J. O. D. Wasb. 
 In re Norcross, 1 Am. B. R. 644, R. O W. D. Mo. 
 In re Curtis, 2 Am. B. R. 236, C. C. A. 7. 
 Leidigh Carriage Co., vs. Stengel, 2 Am. B. R. 383, C. C. A. 6. 
 In re Curtis, 91 Fed. 737, J. O. S. D. 111. 
 
 In re John A. Etheridge Furniture Co., 93 Fed. 339, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Nelson, 98 Fed. 76, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 In re Sinsheimer, 96 Fed. 579, J. O. D. Ky. 
 Mather vs. Coe, 92 Fed. 333, J. O. N. D. O. 
 In re Kelly, 91 Fed. 504, J. O. W. D. Tenn, , 
 
 Subcl. C In re Stevenson, 3 Am. B. R. 66, J. O. D. Del.; s. c. 94 Fed. 110. 
 
 In re Dupree, 97 Fed. 38, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Subd. d In re Barrett Co. 2 N. B. N. 80, R O. N. D. 111. 
 In re Romanow, 1 Am. B. R. 461, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Mercur, 95 Fed. 684, J. O. E. D. Mass. 
 
 Subd. e In re Romanow, 1 N. B. N. 313, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 461. 
 In re Barrett Co., 3 N. B. N. 80, R. 0. N. D. 111. 
 
 Subd. f In re Romanow, 1 N. B. N. 213, J. 0. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 461 ; 92 
 
 Fed. 510. 
 In re Beddingsfleld, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 355 ; 
 
 96 Fed. 190. 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 413, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Neustadter vs. Chicago Co. 1 N. B. N. 552, J. O. D. Wash. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 
 
 96 ; 96 Fed. 830. 
 
84 
 
 In re Ogles, 2 Am. B. R. 514, R. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Ogles, 93 Fed. 426, J, O. W. D. Tenn. 
 Goldman vs. Smith, 93 Fed 182, J. O. D. Ky. 
 Hill vs. Levy, 98 Fed. 94, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 
 Subd. g In re Beddingsfield, 1 N. B. N. 385, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 355. 
 Neustadter vs. Chicago Co., 1 N. B. N. 552, J. O. D. Wash.; s. c. 96 Fed. 830. 
 Mather vs. Coe, 1 N. B. N. 554, J. O. D. "Wash. 
 , In re Ogles, 93 Fed. 426, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Simonson, 92 Fed. 904, J. O. D. Ky. 
 lu re Von Borcke, 94 Fed. 352, J. O. D. N. J. 
 In re Cronin, 98 Fed. 584, J. O. D. Mass. 
 
 SEC. 60 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Moyer, 1 N. B. N. 260, J. O. E. D. Pa ; s. c. 93 Fed. 188. 
 
 In re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 392, J. O. N. D. Ohio ; so. 2 Am. B. R. 40 ; 
 
 95 Fed. 121. 
 In re The Little River Lumber Co , 1 N. B. N. 306, R. O. W. D. Ark. 
 In re Dunavant, 1 N. B. N. 543, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Cain, 1 N. B. N. 389, R. and J. O. N. D. 111.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 378. 
 Crooks vs. National Bank, 1 N. B. N. 530, Sup. Ct. N. Y. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B, N. 403, R. O. S. D. Ohio. 
 In re Nelson, 1 N. B. N, 567, J. O. W. D. "Wis. 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 412, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 557, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Hopkics, 1 N. B. N. 71, R. O. N. D. Ala. 
 Mather vs. Coe, 1 N. B. N. 554, J. O. N. D. Ohio ; s. c. 92 Fed. 333. 
 In re Stendts, 1 N. B. N. 509, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 529, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 224. 
 In re Piper, 2 N. B. N. 7, J. O. S. D. Cal. 
 In re Piper, 2 N. B. N. 8, R. O. S. D. Cal. 
 In re Rhodes, 3 N. B. N. 301, J. O. "W. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Lange, 2 N. B. N. 85, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 231. 
 In re Conhaim. 2 N. B. N. 148, J. 0. D. "Wash.; s. c. 97 Fed. 923. 
 In re "Wise, 2 N. B. N. 151, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Eggert, 2 N. B. N. 185, R. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Jones, 3 N. B. N. 190, R. 0. D. Mo. 
 Shutts vs. First Nat. Bank, 98 Fed. 705, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Ebert, 1 Am. B. R. 340, R. 0. D. Wis. 
 In re Tierre, 2 Am. B. R. 463, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 Smiih vs. Dodson, 3 Am. B. R. 9, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Eggert, 98 Fed. 843, J. O. E. D, Wis. 
 In re Pearson, 3 Am. B. R. 483, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 Johnson vs. Wald, 3 Am. B. R. 84, C. 0. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 640. 
 In re Richards, 2 Am. B. R. 518, J. O. D. Wis. 
 In re Klingaman, 2 Am. B. R. 44, R. O. S. D. la. 
 
85 
 
 In re Teague, 3 Am. B. R. 168, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Rome Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 133, J. 0. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 813. 
 
 In re Kross, 3 Am. B. R. 187, J. 0. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 Worden vs. Col. Elec. Co., 3 Am. B. R. 186, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 96 Fed. 808. 
 
 Crooks vs. National Bank, 3 Am. B. R. 343, Appel. D. Sup. Ct. N. Y. 
 
 In re Sheridan, 98 Fed. 406, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Ogles, 93 Fed. 426, J. 0. W. D. Tenn, 
 
 In re Little River Co., 93 Fed, 585, J. O. W. D. Ark. 
 
 In re Nathan, 93 Fed 590, J. O. D Nev. 
 
 In re Wolf, 98 Fed. 590, J. O. N. D, la. 
 
 Subd. b In re Fellerath, 1 N. B. N. 393, J. O. N. D. Ohio ; s. c. 95 Fed. 131. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R. O. S. D. Ohio.; s c. 2 Am. B. R. 471. 
 In re Cain, 1 N. B. N. 389, R and J. O. N D. 111. 
 Blakey vs. Boonville National Bank, 1 N. B. N. 411, J. O. D. Ind. ; s. c. 3 
 
 Am. B. R. 459 ; 95 Fed 367. 
 Mather vs. Coe, 1 N. B. N! 544, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N. 7, J. O. 8. D. Cal. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N. 8, R. O. S. D. Cal. 
 In re Galvin, 3 N. B. N. 146, R. 0. 8. D. 
 In re Wise, 3 N. B. N. 151, R. O. N. D: N. 
 
SBC. 61 
 Subd. a 
 
 86 
 
 In re Eggert, 3 N. B. N. 185, R. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Baker, 3 N. B. N. 353, R. O. D. Colo. 
 
 Goldman vs. Smith, 1 Am B R. 366, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Eelly, 1 Am. B. R. 306, J. O. W. D. Tenn.; s. c. 91 Fed. 504. 
 
 In re Ebert, 1 Am. B. R. 840, R. O. W. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Little River Co., 1 Am. B. R. 483, J. O, W. D. Ark. 
 
 In re Jacobs, 1 Am. B. R. 518, R. O. W. D. La. 
 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R. 671, J. 0. W. D. Tenn. 
 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengel, 3 Am. R. 883, C. C. A. 6. 
 
 In re Cobb, 3 Am. B. R. 139, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 Crooks vs. National Bank, 3 Am. B. R. 238, Appell. D. Sup. Ct. N. Y. 
 
 In re Curtis, 94 Fed. 630, C. C. A. 7. 
 
 Carter vs. Hob^bs, 94 Fed. 108, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Subd. c In re Fellerath, 1, N. B. N 293, J. O. N. D. Ohio.; 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R O. S. D. Ohio. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N. 7, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Piper, 3 N. B. N. 8, R. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Cain, 3 Am. B. R. 378, R. O. N. D. 111. 
 
 s. c 95 Fed. 131. 
 
 Subd. d In re Beck, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. S D la ; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 564 ; 93 Fed. 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R. O. S. D. Ohio. 
 In re Averill, 1 N. B. JSf. 545, J. & R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Kross, 1 N. B. JST. 566, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 816. 
 In re Etheridge Furniture Co., 92 Fed. 339, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Fallerath, 95 Fed. 131, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
SEC. 62 
 Sul)d. a 
 
 87 
 
 In re Sabine. 1 N. B N 312, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Baginsky, 1 N. B. N. 360, R. 0. E. D. La.; s. 
 In re Pauly, 1 N. B. N. 405. R. O. N. D. N. Y.: s. 
 In re Plummer, 3 N. B. N. 393, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Gerson, 1 Am. B. R. 351, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 c. 3 Am. B. R. 343. 
 c. 3 Am. B. R. 833. 
 
 SEC. 63 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 191, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Jefiferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306. 
 
 In re Houston, 1 N. B. N. 305, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 107 ; 94 Fed. 
 
 119. 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. E. D. Pa, 
 In re Sullivan, 1 N. B. N. 380, R. O. N. D. N. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N. B. N. 385, R. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 95 Fed. 360. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 171, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Van Orden, 1 N. B. N. 475, J. O. D. N. J.; 
 In re Huber, 1 N. B. N. 513, R. O. D. N. Y. 
 In re McBride, 3 N. B. N. 345, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Lawrie, 3 N. B. N. 77, R. O, E. D. Wis. 
 In re Challoner, 3 N. B. N. 105, J. O. N. D. III. 
 In re Arnstein & Bonn, 3 N. B. N. 106, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Kalter, 3 N. B. N. 364, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 s. c. 3 Am. B, R. 170. 
 Y. 
 
 s. c. 96 Fed. 86. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306. 
 
 In re Gerson, 1 K. B. N. 315, R. O. E. D. Pa.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 170. 
 In re Woodard, 3 Am. B. R. 339, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Van Orden, 3 Am. B. R. 801, J. O. D. N. J. 
 In re Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 07, R. O. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 3 1° « Jefferson, 1 N. B.-N. 288, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 206. 
 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. E. D. Pa.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 170. 
 In re Young, 3 Am. B. R. 673, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Allen, 3 Am. B. R. 38, J. O. N. D. Cal.; s. c. 96 Fed. 513. 
 
88 
 
 CI. 4 In re Rouse, 1 N. B, N. 48, N. E. D. Ohio. (Note.) 
 
 In re Silverman Bros., 1 N. B. N. 286, R. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 15. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306 ; 93 Fed. 
 
 948. 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, E. 0. B. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Marshall Paper Co., 1 N. B. N. 407. J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 95 Fed. 419. 
 In re Heinsfurter, 1 N. B N. 504, J. O. S D. la.; s. c. 97 Fed. 198. 
 In re Schierman, 3 N. B. N 116, R. O. E. D. Mo. 
 •Hill vs. Levy, 2 N. B. N. 160, J. O. E. D. Va. 
 In re Rouse, 1 Am. B. R. 393, R. O N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Lazarovic, 1 Am. B. R. 476, R. O. D. Kan. 
 In re Challoner, 98 Fed. 82, J. O. N. D. 111. 
 In re Alderson, 98 Fed. 588, J. O D. W. Va. 
 
 CI. 5 In re Pinkel, 1 N. B. N. 138, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 333. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; s. o. 3 Am. B. R. 306. 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. E. D. Pa.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 170. 
 In re Richards, 1 N. B. N. 487, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 506 ; 94 
 
 Fed. 638. 
 In re Challoner. 3 N, B. N. 105, J. O, N. D. III. 
 In re Baker, 3 N. B. N. 195, J. O. E, D. Tex. 
 In re McBride, 2 N. B. N. 345, J. O. B. D. N. C. 
 In re Lipman, 94 Fed. 353, J. O. S. D, N. Y. 
 In re Scott, 93 Fed. 418, J. O. N. D. Tex. 
 
 Sul)d. b In re Rouse, 1 N. B. N. 48. (Note.) 
 
 In re Silverman Bros., 1 N. B. N, 386, R. O. W. D, Mo. 
 
 In re Sullivan, 1 N. B. N. 380, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Heinsfurter, 1 N. B. N. 467, J. O. 8. D. la ; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 504 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 198. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 471, R. O N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rhodes, 3 N. B. N. 179, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Rouse, 1 Am. B. R. 398, R. O, N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Silverman Bros., 3 Am. B. R, 15, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 
SEC. 64 
 Snbd. a 
 
 89 
 
 In re Baker, 1 N. B. N. 213, R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 526. 
 
 In re Kross, 1 N. B. N. 566, J; 0. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Frick, 1 N. B. N. 214, R O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Barber, et al. 1 N. B. N. 559, J. O. D. Minn, ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306 ; 97 
 
 Fed. 547. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B, N. 288, J. O. D. Ky.; a. c. 98 Fed. 948. 
 In re Averill, 1 N. B. N. 544, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 312, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 322. 
 In re Ott, 1 N. B N. 571, J. O. S. D. la. 
 
 In re Tilden, 1 Am. B R. 800, J. O 8. D. la ; s. c. 91 Fed. 500 
 In re Kirby-Denis Co. 3 Am. B. R. 218, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 94 Fed. 818. 
 Clafln vs. Eason, 2 Am. B. R. 268, R. O. °E. D. Tex. 
 In re Kirby-Denis Co. 2 Am. B. R. 402, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 95 Fed. 116. 
 In re Gerson, 2 Am. B. R. 352, R. O. E. B. Pa. 
 In re Collins, 2 Am. B. R. 1, R. 0. S. D. la. 
 
 In re Hollenfeltz, 2 Am. B. R. 499, J. O. N. D. la. ; s. c. 94 Fed. 629. 
 In re Ott, 2 Am. B. R. 637, J. 0. 8, D. la ; s. c. 94 Fed. 274. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5. 
 In re Fielding, 3 A. B. R. 135, J. O. W..D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 In re Ruppel, 3 Am. B. R. 233, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 
 Subd. b 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 190, R. O. E. D. Pa ; s. c. 1 Am, B. R. 251. 
 
 In re Gerson (II.), 1 N. B, N. 315, R, O. E. D. Pa.: s, c. 2 Am. B. R. 170. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky.; s, c 2 Am. B. R. 206. 
 
 In re Tyler Banking Co., 1 N. B. N. 860, R. O. E. D. Tex. 
 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, J. O. W. D, N. C. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 529. 
 
 In re Kingman, 1 N. B. N. 518, R. O. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 1 N. B. N. 534, J. O. E. D. N. 0,; s. c. 96 Fed. 
 
 950. 
 In re Gilblom & King, 2 N. B. N. 60, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 322, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 2 Am. B. R. 218, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 2 Am. B. R. 529, C. C. A. 5. 
 In re Allen, 3 Am. B. R. 38, J. O. N. D. Cal.; s. c. 96 Fed. 513. 
 In re Fielding, 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 
90 
 
 In re Stotts, .93 Fed. 438, J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 95 Fed. 116, C. C. A. 7. 
 In re Barber et al., 97 Fed. 547, J. O. E. Minn. 
 In re Kross, 96 Fed. 816, J. O, S. D. N. Y. 
 
 CI. 2 In re Tyler Banking Co., 1 N. B. N. 360, R. O. E. D. Tex. 
 
 In re Sabine. 1 A.m. B. R. 823, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Jefferson, 3 Am. B. R. 306, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Byrne, 3 Am. B. R. 268, J. O, S. D. la. 
 In re Kirby-Dennis Co., 95 Fed. 116, C. C. A. 7. 
 In re J. W. Harrison Mercantile Co., 95 Fed. 138, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Allen, 96 Fed. 512, N, D. Cal. 
 In re Silverman et al ; 97 Fed. 835, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Frick, 1 N. B. N. 314, R. O. N. D. Ohio; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 719. 
 
 In re Wolpert, 1 N. B. N. 239, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Michel, 1 N. B. N. 265, R. O E. D. Wis ; a. c 1 Am. B. R. 665. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky.; s c. 3 Am. B. R. 306. 
 In re Sabine (II.), 1 N. B. N. 313, R. O. N. D N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 322. 
 In re Beck, 1 N. B. N. 338, J. O. S. D, la.; s. c. 1 N. B. N. 564; 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 535; 92 Fed. 889. 
 In re Averill, 1 N. B. N. 544, R. O N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Scoft, 1 N. B. N. 355, J. O. N. D. Tex.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 834; 96 Fed. 
 
 607. 
 In re Tyler Banking Co., 1 N. B. N. 360, R. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Kross, 1 N. B. N. 566, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 187 ■ 96 
 
 Fed. 816. 
 In re Harrison Co., 1 N. B. N. 883, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s, c. 2 Am. B. R. 419 ; 
 
 95 Fed. 123. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 404, R. O. N. D. N. Y.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 648. 
 In re Pauly, 1 N. B. N. 405, R. O. N. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 33. 
 In re Woodard, 1 N. B. N. 430, J. O. E. D. IST. C; s. c. 2 Am. Am. B. R 692- 
 
 95 Fed. 955. 
 In re Silverman, 3 N. B. N. 18, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
^1 n:H: 
 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 2 N. B. N. 23, J. O. B. D. N. C. ; s. c. 96 Fed. 
 
 950 ; 3 Am. B. R. 154. 
 In re O'Connell, 3 N. B. N. 287, J. 0. S. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 98 Fed. 83. 
 In re Ghiglione, 1 Am. B. R. 580, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Stotts, 1 Am. B. R. 641, J. O. 8. D. la.; s. c. 93 Fed. 438. 
 In re Mitchell, 1 Am. B. R. 687, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Easley, 1 Am. B. R. 715, J. O. "W. D. Va, 
 Claflin vs. Eason, 2 Am. B R. 263, R. 0. E, D. Tex. 
 In re Duncan, 2 Am. B. R. 313, R. and J. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Wood, 2 Am. B. R. 695, J. 0. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Grimes, 3 Am. B. R. 730, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 In re Silverman, 3 Am. B. R, 327, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.. s. c. 97 Fed. 335. 
 In re Burrus, 3 Am. B. R. 296, J. O. W. D. Wash.; s. c. 97 Fed. 926. 
 In re Kerby -Dennis Co., 95 Fed. 116, C. C. A. 7. 
 In re Allen, 96 Fed. 513, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Byrne, 97 Fed.. 762, J. O. 8. D. la. 
 In re Matthews, 97 Fed. 773, J. O. 8. D. la. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. 0. D. Minn. 
 
 CI. 4 In re Rouse, 1 N. B. N. 75, C. C. A. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 284 ; 91 Fed. 96. 
 
 In re Qerson, 1 N. B. N. 190, R. O. E. D. Pa.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 251. 
 In re Rose, 1 N. B. N. 313, R. O. N. D. Ohio.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 68 
 In re Frick, 1 N. B. N. 314, R. 6. N. D. Ohio. 
 
92 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D, Ky. ; s, c. 8 Ain. B. R. 306. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 337, J O. E, D. Wis.; s. c. 94 Fed. 818. 
 
 In re Kirby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 399, CCA 7 ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 403 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 116. 
 In re Tyler Co , 1 N. B N. 360. R. O. E D. Tex. 
 In re Grubbs Wiley Co., 1 N. B,. N. 81, J. O. W. D. Mo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 183 ; 
 
 3 Am. B R. 443. 
 In re Carolina Cooperage Co., 3 N. B. N. 33, J. O. E. D. N. C ; s. c. 96 Fed. 
 
 950. 
 In re O'Connell, 98 Fed 83. J. O. S. D. N. T. 
 In re Scanlon & Co., 3 N, B, N. 58, J. O. D. Pa. 
 InreEmslie, 3 N. B. N. 171, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 383; 97 
 
 Fed. 939. 
 In re Bryne, 3 N. B. N. 346, R. O. 8. D. la. 
 In re Emslie & Co., 3 N. B. N. 334. J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rouse, 1 Am. B. R. 331, J. O. N. D. 111.; s. c. 91 Fed. 514. 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am. B. R. 333, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Michel, 95 Fed. 803, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Scanlan, 97 Fed. 36, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 CI 5. In re Rouse, 1 N. B. N. 75, C C. A. 7.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 334. 
 
 In re Harrison Co., 1 N. B. N. 311, R. O W. D. Mo. 
 In re Rose, 1 N. B N. 313, R. O. N. D. Ohio ; s c. 1 Am. B. R. 68 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 306. 
 In re Collins, 1 N. B. N. 390, R. O. 8. D. la. 
 
 In re Gerson, (II) 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. E, D. Pa.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 170. 
 In re Tyler Banking Co., 1 N. B. N. 360, R. O. E. D. Tex. 
 In re Goldstein, 1 N. B N. 433, R. O. W. D. Pa.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 603. 
 In re Wright, 1 N. B N. 4S8, J. O. D. Mass,; s. c. 3 Am. B. R 593; 95 Fed. 
 
 807. 
 In re Sisler, 1 N. B. N. 473? J. O. W. D. Va ; s. c. 96 Fed. 403. 
 In re Cronson 1 N. B. N. 474, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Shilliday, 1 N. B. N. 475, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Fall City Co., 1 N. B. N. 565, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Byrne, 3 N. B. N. 346, R. & J. O. S. D. la. 
 In re Rouse, 1 Am. B. R. 331, J. O. N. D. 111.; s. c. 91 Fed. 514. 
 In re Gerson, 1 Am. B. R. 351, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Sabine, 1 Am, B. R. 323, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
93 
 
 In re Frick, 1 Am. B, R. 719, R. O. N. D, Ohio. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 95 Fed. 116, C. C. A. 7. 
 
 In re Allen, 96 Fed. 513, J. O. N. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Higglns, 97 Fed. 775, J. 0. D. Ky. 
 
 In le Barber. 97 Fed. 647, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 In re Falls City Shirt Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 593, J. O. D, Ky. 
 
 Subd. c 
 SEC. 65 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Sabine, (II.) 1 N. B. N. 313,' R. O. N. D. N. Y ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 333. 
 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 389, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663; 94 Fed; 134. 
 In re Fort Wayne Co., 1 K. B. N. 356, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 706. 
 In re Coffin, 1 N. B N. 505, R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 844. 
 In re Wallier, 1 N. B. N. 510, J. O. E. D. N. Dak.; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 35. 
 In re Barber, 1 N. B. N. 560, J. O. D. Minn.; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 306; 97 Fed. 
 
 547. 
 In re Bates, 3 N. B. N. 311. R. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Gerson, 3 Am. B. R. 353, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Fielding, 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. "W. D. Mo ; s. c. 96 Fed. 800. 
 
 Subd. b In re Sabine, 1 N. B. N. 313, R. O. N. D. N. T. 
 
 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O, D. Ind.; s. c. 94 Fed. 134. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 Subd. C In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, 3. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663 ; 94 Fed. 134. 
 
 In re Scott, 1 N, B. N. 353, J. O. N. D. Tex. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 334 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 607. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
Subd. d 
 Subd. e 
 
 SEC. 66 
 
 Svibd. a 
 
 Subd. b 
 
 94 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O D. Minn. 
 In re Barber, 97 Fed. 547, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 In re Stein, 1 N, B. N. 339, J. 0. D. Ind., s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663 ; 94 Fed. 124. 
 In re Fielding, 3 Am. B. R. 135, J. O. W. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Stein, 1 N. B. N. 339, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 663 ; 94 Fed. 124. 
 In re Fielding, 96 Fed. 800, J. O W. D. Mo. 
 
 SEC. 67 
 Subd. a 
 
 In re Hopkins, 1 N. B. N. 71, R. O. E. D. Ala. 
 
 In re Kletchka, 1 N. B. N. 160, J. O. S. D. K. Y. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O D. Ky.; s. c 93 Fed. 948. 
 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 391, R O. D Ky. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 399, C. C. A 7 ; s. c. 95 Fed. 116 ; 3 Am. 
 
 B. R. 403. 
 In re Kerby-Denais Co.. 1 N. B. N. 337, J. O. E D. Wis ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 
 
 218 ; 94 Fed. 818 
 In re Yukon Woolen Co., 1 K B. N. 420, R &. J. O. D. Conn.; s. c. 3 Am. 
 
 B. R. 805. 
 In re Goldstein, 1 N. B. N. 433, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Leigh Bros., IN B. N. 435, R. O. D. Colo. 
 In re Leigh Bros., 1 N. B. N. 536, J. O. D. Colo.; s. c. 96 Fed. 806. 
 In re Loud, 1 N. B. N..502, R. O. B. D. Mich. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich.; s. c. 97 Fed. 188. 
 In re Little River Co., 1 Am. B. R. 483, J. O. W. D. Ark. 
 In re Fellerath, 3 Am. B. R. 40, J. O. N. D. Ohio ; s. c. 95 Fed. 131. 
 In re Smith & Dodson, 2 Am. B. R. 9, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Wright, 2 Am. B. R. 364, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 96 Fed. 187 ; 1 N. B. 
 
 N. 381. 
 Coleman vs. Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 104, R. O. D. Ky. 
 In re McLam, 3 Am. B. R. 345, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c 97 Fed. 923. 
 In re Kenney, 3 Am. B. R. 353, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed. 554. 
 In re Legg, 96 Fed. 336, J. O. D. Conn. 
 
95 
 
 Sutod. b In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. 0. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 399. C. C. A. 7. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Globe Cycle Works, 1 N. B. N. 864, R. 0. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Wright, 3 Am. B. R. 364, J. O. N. D. Ga. 
 
 In reFellerath, 95 Fed. 121, J. 0. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J, O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 923, J, 0. D. Vt. 
 
 In re Burrus, 97 Fed. 936, J. O. W. D. Va. 
 
 Subd. c 
 
 CI. 1 Smith vs. Meisnheimer, 1 N. B. N. 18, J. O. D. Ky. (Note.) 
 
 In re Hopkins,. 1 N. B. N. 71, R. O. N. D. Ala.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 209. 
 
 In re Friedman, 1 N. B. N. 208, R. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 510. 
 
 In re Mitchell, 1 N. B. N. 263, .1. O. W. D. Pa ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 701. 
 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Collins, 1 N. B. N. 390, R. O. S. D. la.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 1. 
 
 In re Arnold. 1 N. B. N. 384, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R.; 94 Fed. 1001 . 
 
 In te Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 337, J. O. E. D. Wis. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 
 
 218 ; 94 Fed. 818. 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 399, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 402 ; 95 
 
 Fed. 116. 
 In re Booth, 1 N. B. N. 476, J. and R. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c 3 Am. B. R. 770. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 415. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 554, C. C. A. 3. 
 In re De Lue, 1 N. B. N. 555, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 387 ; 91 Fed. 
 
 510. 
 In re Webb. 3 N. B. N. 18, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Richards, 3 N. B. N. 38, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 935 ; 3 Am. B. R 145. 
 In re O'Conner, 3 N. B. N. 90, J. O. E. D. N. Y.; s. c. 95 Fed. 943. 
 In re Huggins, 3 N. B. N. 115, J. O. D. Ky.; s. c. 97 Fed. 775. 
 In re Kenney, 2 N. B. N. 140, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 95 Fed. 437. 
 In re Rhodes, 3 N. B. N. 176, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Spacht, 2 N. B. N. 238, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Emslie, 3 N. B. N. 334, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Rhoads, 3 N. B, N. 801. J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 • In re Huffman, 1 Am. B. R. 587, R. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R. 671, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 In re Hernisch, 1 Am. B. R. 713, R. O. D. Md. 
 In re Richards, 2 Am. B. R. 506, J. 0. B. D. N. C; s c. 94 Fed. 633. 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengel, 2 Am. B. R. 383 C. C. A. 6. 
 In re Allen, 3 Am. B. R. 38, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Burrus, 3 Am. B. R. 296, J. 0. W. D. Va.; s. c. 97 Fed. 926. 
 In re Kletchka, 92 Fed. 901, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Easly, 93 Fed, 419, J. O. W. D. Va. 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 131, J. 0. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re McLaw, 97 Fed. 933, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
96 
 
 CI. 2 Id re JeflEerson, 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Gutwilllg, 1 N. B. N. 544, CCA. 2. 
 
 In re Mitchell. 1 N. B. N. 262, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Kichard, 2 Am. B. R. 506, J. O. B. D. N. C; s. c. 94 Fed. 633. 
 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C C A. 7 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 121, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 95 Fed.' 116, C C A. 7. 
 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 922, J. O D. Vt. 
 
 In re Burrus, 97 Fed. 926, J. O. W. 'D. Va. 
 
 In re Hammond, 98 Fed. 845, J. D. O. Mass. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Mitchell, 1 N. B. N. 262 J. O. "W. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Jefferson. 1 N. B. N. 288, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. I). Mich. 
 In re Richard, 2 Am. B. R. 506, J. O. E. D. N. C; s. c. 94 Fed. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C C. A. 7 ; s. c. 96 Fed. 635. 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 121, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 95 Fed. 116, C C. A. 7. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 922, J. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Burrus, 97 Fed. 936, J. O. "W. D. Va. 
 
97 
 
 Subd. d In re Frlck, 1 N. B. N. 214, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Easley, 1 N. B. N. 330, J.O. W. D. Va. 
 , In re Mitchell, 1 N. B. N. 263, J. O. "W. D. Pa. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky.; a. c. 3 Am. B. R. 306. 
 In re Wright, 1 N. B. N 381, J. O. N. D. Ga.; s. c. 96 Fed. 187. 
 In re Bozeman, 1 N. B. N. 479, R. 0. S. D. Ga.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 809. 
 In re Barrett Pub. Co., 3 N. B. N. 80, R. 0. D. 111. 
 In re Emslie, SN. B. N. 324, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 98 Fed. 716. 
 Continential National Bank vs. Katz, 1 Am. B. R. 19, Sup. Ct. 111. ; 
 
 N. B. N. 165. 
 Reid vs. Cross, 1 Am. B. R. 34, Sup, Ct. Ill 
 In re Little River Co., 1 Am. B R. 483, J. O. w! D. Ark. 
 In re Brooks, 1 Am. B, R. 531, J. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Bloomberg, 1 Am, B. R. 633, J. O. E. D, Tenn. 
 In re HoUoway, 1 Am. B. R, 659, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Hernick, 1 Am. B. R. 713, R. O. D, Md. 
 
 In re Kerby-Dennis Co., 2 Am. B. R, 403, C. C. A. 7; s. c. 95 Fed. 116. 
 In re Gutwillig, 90 Fed. 475, J, O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Gutwillig, 93 Fed. 337, C. C. A. 3. 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 131, J. O. N. D. O. 
 In re Dunavant, 96 Fed. 543, J. O, W. D. K. C. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 933, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
 c. 1 
 
 Subd. e In re Grabs, 1 N. B. N. 164, R. O. 8. D. Ohio.; s, c. 1 Am.-B. R. 465. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 167, R, O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Jacobs, 1 N. B. N. 163, R. O. W. D. La ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 518. 
 In re Huffman, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. 0. W. D. Pa.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 587. 
 In re Little River Lumber Co., 1 N. B. N. 308. J. O. W. D. Ark. 
 In re Jefferson, 1 N. B. N. 388, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Leeman, 1 N. B. N. 331, R. and J. O. D. Mo, 
 In re Tierre, 1 N. B. N. 403, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 95 Fed. 435 ; 3 Am. B. 
 
 R, 493. 
 In re Knost & Wllbelmy, 1 N. B, N, 403, R. O, D. Ohio ; s. c, 3 Am. B. R, 471. 
 Blakey vs, Boonville National Bank, 1 N. B. N. 411, J. O. D. Ind.; s. c. 2 
 
 Am. B. R. 459 ; 95 Fed. 367. 
 In re Leigh Bros., 1 N. B. N. 425, R. O. D. Colo. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 606. 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 480, R. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E D. Mich. 
 In re Nathan, 1 N. B. N, 563, J. O. D. Nev. 
 In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B, N. 554, C. C. A. 3,; s. c. 93 Fed. 337 ; 1 Am. B. R. 
 
 388. 
 
In re Cobb, 1 N. B. N. 557, J. O. E. D. N. C. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 123 ; 96 Fed. 
 
 831. 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank, 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind, 
 In reGutwillig, 1 Am. B. R. 78, J. O. 8. D. K. Y.; s. c. 90 Fed. 475. 
 In re Brown et al. 1 Am. B. R. 107, J. O. D. Ore ; s. c. 91 Fed. 858. 
 In re Sievers, 1 Am. B. R. 117, J. O. E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re Empire Metallic Bedstead Co,, 1 Am B. R. 136, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Smith, 1 Am. B. R. 366, J. O. D. Ky. 
 In re Sievers, 1 Am. B. R. 412, C. C. A. 8. 
 In re Curtis et al 1 Am, B. R. 440, J. O S. D. 111. 
 In re Romanow et al. 1 Am. B. R. 461, J. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Wilcox & Wright, 1 Am. B. R. 544, R. O. D. Tenn. 
 In re Ogles, 1 Am. B. R. 671, J. O. W. D. Tenn. 
 Peck Lumber Co. vs. Mitchell, 1 Am. B. R. 701, J. O. Com. Pleas. Pa. 
 In re Woodard, 3 Am. B. R. 233, R. O. B. D. Tex. 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am. B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed, 767. 
 In re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7; s. c. 96 Fed. 935. 
 In re Taylor, 95 Fed. 956, J. O, N. D. Cal. 
 In re Fellerath, 95 Fed. 131, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 933, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
 Sutod. f 1° re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 19, J. O. S. D. N. Y. (Note.) 
 
 In re Hopkins, 1 N. B. N. 71, R. O. N. D. Ala.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 209. 
 In re Carter, 1 N. B. N. 162, R. O. S, D. Ga. 
 In re Grabs, 1 N. B. N. 164, R. O. S. D. Ohio. 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 167, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
99 
 
 n re Friedman, 1 N. B. N. 208, R. O. S, D. N. Y.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 510, 
 
 n re Easly, 1 N. B. N. 230, J. 0, W. D. Va ; s, c, 93 Fed, 419. 
 
 n re HuflEmao, 1 N. B. N. 215, R, O. W. D, Pa, ; s, c. 1 Am, B. R, 587, 
 
 n re Mitchell, 1 N. B, N. 268, J. 0. W, D, Pa, 
 
 n re Jeflerson, 1 N. B, N. 288, J- O. D, Ky. 
 
 n re Collins, 1 N, B. N, 390, R, O. 8. D. la,; s. c, 2 Am, B. R. 1. 
 
 n re Qerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, R, O, E. D. Pa,; s, c. 3 Am, B, R, 170, 
 
 n re Kerby-Dennls Co,, 1 N, B, N, 337, J. 0. E, D. Wis ; 2 Am, B. R, 318 ; 
 
 94 Fed. 818. 
 n re Kerby-Dennis Co., 1 N. B. N. 399, C. C. A. 7 ; s. c, 95 Fed, 116, 
 n re Kenney, 1 N. B, N, 401, J. O. 8, D. N, Y,; s. c, 95 Fed. 437 ; 2 Am. B, 
 
 R, 494. 
 n re Knost & Wilhelmy, 1 N. B. N, 403, R, O, 8. D, Ohio.; s. c, 2 Am, B. R. 
 
 471. 
 n re Globe Cycle "Works, 1 N, B, N, 421, R. O. N. D, N. Y,; a, c, 3 Am. B. 
 
 R,447. 
 n re Leigh Bros. 1 N, B, N, 435, R. O, D, Colo ; s, c. 2 Am, B. R, 606. 
 n re Pearson, 1 N, B, N. 474, R. O. E. D. Pa, 
 n re Valentine, 1 N, B, N. 532, J. O. N. D. Colo.; s. c. 2 Am B. R. 188 ; 93 
 
 Fed. 953. 
 n re Booth, 1 N. B. N. 476, R. & J. O. N. D, Ga.; s. c, 2 Am. B. R. 770. 
 n re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 554, C. C. A. 3. 
 n re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich, 
 n re Pruschen, 1 N. B. N. 526, R. O. E. D. La. 
 n re Lawrie, 2 N, B. N. 77, R. O, E, D, "Wis, 
 n re O'Connor, 2 N. B N. 90, J. O. E. D. N, Y,; s, c, 95 Fed, 943, 
 n re Emslie & Son, 2 N, B. N. 171, J. O. 8. D. N. Y. ; s. c. 8 Am B. R, 282 ; 
 
 97 Fed. 929, 
 n re Rhoads, 2 N. B, N. 176, R. O. "W. D. Pa.; s. c. 98 Fed. 899. 
 n re Spacht, 2 N. B.' N. 238, R, O. W. D. Pa. 
 n re Rhodes, 2 N. B. N. 301, J, O. "W. D, Pa 
 n re 8hutts vs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N. 320, J. 0. D. Ind. 
 n re Emslie, 2 N. B, N. 324, J. 0. 8. D. N. Y.; s c. 98 Fed, 716. 
 n re De Lue, 1 Am, B, R, 387, J. O. D. Mass. 
 n re Ogles, 1 Am, B. R. 671, J. O, "W, D. Tenn.; s. c. 93 Fed. 436, 
 n re Hernich, 1 Am. B. R. 713, R. O. D. Md. 
 n re Franks, 3 Am. B. R. 684. J. 0. 8. D. Ala.; s. c, 95 Fed. 635. 
 n re Ferguson, 3 Am, B, R. 586, J, O, S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 95 Fed. 429. 
 n re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 518, J. O. W. D. "Wis.; s. c. 95 Fed. 358. 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengel, 3 Am, B, R, 383, CO, A. 6, 
 n re Richards, 3 Am. B. R. 145, C. C. A. 7; s. c. 96 Fed. 935; 2 N. B. N. 38. 
 n re Dunavant, 3 Am. B. R. 41, J, 0. E. D. N. C; s. c. 96 Fed. 543. 
 n re Allen, 3 Am. B. R. 88, J. O. W. D. Cal. 
 n re Brown, 91 Fed. 858, J. O. D. Ore, 
 n re "Wood, 95 Fed, 946, J. O, E. D. N. C. 
 
 n re Kenney, 97 Fed. 554, J. O. 8. D. N, Y.; s. c. 3 N. B.. N. 140. 
 n re Kimball, 97 Fed. 29, J. O. W. D. Pa, 
 n re Klein, 97 Fed. 31, J. O. N. D, 111, 
 n re Vaughn, 97 Fed. 560, J. O, S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 362 ; 3 N. B. 
 
 N. 97. 
 n re Higgins, 97 Fed. 775, J. O. D, Ky. ; s, c. 8 Am, B. R. 364 ; 2 N. 
 
 B. N. 115. 
 n re McLam, 97 Fed. 922, J. O. D. Vt. 
 n re Buelow, 98 Fed. 86, J. 0. D. "Wash. 
 
100 
 
 Proviso. In re Ruppel, 3 N. B. N. 88, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Kenney, 95 Fed. 427, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Fellerah, 95 Fed. 131, J. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 In re Kenney (II), 97 Fed. 554, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re McLam, 97 Fed. 923, J. 0. D. Vt. 
 
 SEC, 68 
 Sulxl. a 
 
 In re Kalter, 2 N. B. N. 264, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Bingham, 2 Am. B. R. 223, J. O. D. Vt.; s. c. 94 Fed. 796. 
 
 In re Knost, 3 Am. B. R. 471, R. O. S. D. O. 
 
 In re Fort Wayne Elec. Co., 3 Am. B. R. 503, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Goodman Shoe Co. 3 Am. B. R. 200, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 
 Subd. b 
 CI. 1 
 
 CI. a 
 
SEC. 69 
 Subtl. a 
 
 101 
 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 61. (Note.) 
 In re Rockwood, 1 N. B. N. 134, J. O. 
 
 Fed. 368. 
 In re Kelly, 1 N. B. N. 240. (Note.) 
 In re Abraham, 1 N. B. N. 386, C. 
 
 Fed. 767. ;, 
 
 In le Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 338, R. O. B. D. Wis. ' 
 In re Griffith, 1 N. B. N. 546, R. 0. E. D. Tenn. 
 Mather vs. Coe., 1 N. B. N. 554, J. O. N. D. O.; s. c. 93 Fed. 333. 
 In re Kelly, 1 Am. B. R. 306, J. O. W. D. Tenn. ; s. c. 91 Fed. 504. 
 In re Schrom, 3 Am. B. ,R. 353, J. O. W. D. Pa. 
 In re Buntrock Clothing Co., 93 Fed. 886, J. 0. N. D. la. 
 In re Cohn, 98 Fed. 75, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 373 ; 91 
 
 C. A. 5 ; 8. c. 3 Am. B. R. 366 ; 93 
 
 SEC. 70 
 
 Subd. a 
 CI. 1 
 
 In re Daubner, 1 N. B. N. 520, J. O. D. Ore. ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 368 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 805. 
 In re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 335, R. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 In re Sapiro, 1 N. B. N. 136, R. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Sapiro, 1 N. B. N. 137, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 93 Fed. 343. 
 In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 68, J. O. E. D. Mo.; a. c. 91 Fed. 366. 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 1 N. B. N. 91, J. O. D. Ind.; s. o. 92 Fed. 594. 
 Davis vs. Bohle, 1 N. B. N. 216, C. C. A. 8 ; s. c. 92 Fed. 335. 
 In re Sisler, 1 N. B. N. 473, J. O. W. D. Va.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 760; 96 
 
 Fed. 403. 
 In re Ohio Co-Op. Shoe Co., 1 N. B. N. 477, R. O. N. D. O.; s. c. 2 Am. B. 
 
 R. 775. 
 In re Bozeman, 1 N. B. N. 479, R. O. S. D. Ga.; 2 Am. B. R. 809. 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 480, R. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In le Adams, 1 N. B. N. 503, J. O. E. D. Mich. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am, B. R. 55 ; 
 
 96 Fed. 536. 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, J. O. W. D. N. C; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 780 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 529. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 532, J. O. W. D. Tex ; s. c. 93 Fed. 791. 
 In re Bragg, 2 N. B. N. 83, R. O. S. D. Ala. 
 In re O'Connor, 2 N. B. N. 90, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 In re Mussey, 3 N. B. N. 113, R. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Schierman, 3 N. B. N. 118, R. O. E, D. Miss. 
 In re Gerdes, 3 N. B. N. 131, R. O. S. D. Ohio. 
 In re McPeck, 3N. B. N. 173, R. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Oliver, 3 N. B. N. 212, R, O. W. D. Mo. 
 In re Schloerb, 2 N. B. N. 234, J. O. D. D. Wis. 
 In re Berner. 2 N. B. N. 268, R. 0. N D O. 
 In re Horgan, 2 N. B. N. 53, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Fisher, 2 N. B. N. 221, J. O. D. Mass, 
 Schultz vs. First National Bank, 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Smith, 1 Am. B, R. 37, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 In re Camp, 1 Am. B. R. 165, J. O. N. D. Ga. 
 In re McKay, 1 Am. B. R. 393, R. O. N. D. O. 
 
102 
 
 In re Powers, 1 Am. B. R. 433, R. O. D. Vt. 
 
 In re Buntrock, 1 Am. B. R. 454, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 93 Fed. 886. 
 
 In re Brooks, 1 Am. B. R. 531, J. O. D. Vt, 
 
 In re Garden, 1 Am. B. R. 583, J. O. N. D. Ala.; s. c. 98 Fed. 438. 
 
 In re Price, 1 Am. B, R. 600, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 93 Fed. 987. 
 
 In re Colissi, 1 Am. B, R, 635, R. O. W. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Haensell, 1 Am. B. R. 386, J. O N. D. Cal. 
 
 In re Brodbrine, 3 Am. B. R. 53, J. 0. D. Mass. 
 
 In re Abraham, 3 Am B. R. 366, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 93 Fed. 767. 
 
 In re Jackson, 3 Am. B. R. 501, J. O. D Vt. 
 
 In re Leigh Bros , 3 Am. B. R. 606, R. O. D. Colo. 
 
 Sellers vs. Bell, 8 Am. B. R. 539, C. C. A. 5 ; s. c. 94 Fed 801. 
 
 In re Tudor, 3 Am. B. R. 808, J. O. D. Colo. 
 
 In re Pearson, 3 Am. B. R. 819, R. O E. D. Pa. 
 
 In re Bottling Works, 8 Am. B R. 194, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
 In re Mussey, 3 Am. B. R. 6, J. O. D. Ore.; s. c. 96 Fed. 609. 
 
 Keegan vs. King, 3 Am. B. R. 79, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Coffman, 93 Fed 433, J. O. N. D. Tex. 
 
 In re Francis- Valentine Co., 98 Fed. 953, J. O N. D. Cal. 
 
 In re Francis- Valentine Co., 94 Fed. 793, C. C. A. 9. 
 
 In re Cobb, 96 Fed. 831. J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 
 In re Newberry, 97 Rep. 34, J O. W. D. Mich. 
 
103 
 
 CI. 2 In re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 335, J. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 8 Am. B. R. 55 ; 
 
 96 Fed. 536. 
 In re Smith, 1 N. B. N. 533, J. 0. 8 D. Ga. 
 In re Cobb, 96 Fed. 831, J. O. D. N. C. 
 
 CI. 3 In re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 385, R. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. 8. D. N. Y.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 536. 
 Hesseltine vs. Prince, 1 N. B. N. 528, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 95 Fed. 803 ; 2 Am. 
 
 B. R. 600. 
 In re Fisher, 1 Am. B. R. 557, R. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Brodbriae, 2 Am. B. R. 53, J. O. D. Mass.; s. c. 93 Fed. 643. 
 In re Russie, 3 Am. B. R. 6, J. 0. D. Ore. 
 In re Cobb, 96 Fed. 821, J. 0. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Dunevant, 96 Fed. 543, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 In re Crystal Spring Bottling Works, 96 Fed. 945, J. O. D. Vt. 
 
 CI. 4: In re Gutwillig, 1 N. B. N. 40, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. C. 90 Fed, 475. 
 
 In re Grabs, 1 N. B. N. 164, R. O. 8. D. Ohio ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 465. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 167, R. O. E. D. Mich. 
 
 In re Kerski, 1 N. B. N. 328. R. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 79. 
 
 In re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 835, R. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 
 In re Leigh Bros., 1 N. B. N. 425, R. O. D. Colo. 
 
 In re Coffman, 1 N. B. N. 402, R. O. N. D. Tex. 
 
 Reese vs. Vinton, 1 N. B. N. 544, Ct. Com. Pleas, Pa. 
 
 In re Griffith, 1 N. B. K. 546, R. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Welsh, 1 N. B. N. 533, J. O. 8, D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Newberry, 3 N. B, N. 56, J. 0. W. D. Mich.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 154. 
 
 In re Shutts vs. First National Bank, 2 N. B. N. 320, J. 0. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Brown, 1 Am. B. R! 107, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 Carter vs. Hobbs, 3 Am. B. R. 324, J. O. D. Ind, 
 
 In re McNamara, 2 Am, B. R. 566, R. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Richards, 2 Am. B. R. 518, J. O. W. D. Wis. 
 
 In re Russie, 3 Am. B. R. 6, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 In re Baudouine, 3 Am. B. R. 55, J. 0. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 96 Fed. 536. 
 
 In re Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 95, J. O. 8. D. Ga. 
 
 In re Sehlesinger, 3 Am. B. R. 342, J. O. S. D. N. Y, 
 
 In re Bruss-Ritter Co. 90 Fed. 651, J. O. E, D. Wis, 
 
 In re Cobb, 96 Fed. 821, J. O. E. D. N., C. 
 
 In re Dunavant, 66 Fed. 542, J. O. W. D. N. C. 
 
104 
 
 CI. 5 In re Lange, 1 N. B. N. 44, R. O. N. D. la.; s. c. 1 Am. B. K. 186. 
 
 In re Lange, 1 N. B. N. 60, J. O. N. D. la.; s. c. Am. B. R. 189. 
 In re Gerson, 1 N. B. N. 315, R. O. E. D. Pa.; 1 s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 170. 
 In re Rennie, 1 N. B. N. 335, R. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 In re B arris, 1 N. B. N. 884, R. O. N. D. Ill ; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 359. 
 In re Clute, 1 N. B. N. 885, Sup. Ct. Cal.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 376. 
 In re Yukon Woolen Co. 1 N. B. N. 430, R. & J. O. D. Conn.; s. c. 2 Am. B. 
 
 R. 805. 
 In re Leigh Bros. 1 N. B. N. 425, J. O. D. Colo. 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N. 480, R O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Baudouine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. T.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 55 ; 96 
 
 Fed. 586. 
 In re Coffin, 1 N. B. N. 507. R. O. E. D. Tex.; s. c. 3 Am. B. R. 144. 
 Hesseltine vs. Prince, 1 N. B. N. 538, J. O. D. Mass ; s. c. 95 Fed. 803. 
 In re Eastman, 3 N. B, N. 86. R. O. D. Va. 
 In re Becker, 3 N. B. N. 341, R. O. E. D. Pa. 
 In re Becker, 2 N. B. N. 345, J. O. E. D. Pa. 
 InreCoffman, 1 Am. B. R. 530, J. O. N. D. Tex. 
 In re Fisher, 1 Am. B. R. 557. R. O. D. Mass. 
 In re Hernich, 1 Am. B. R. 713. R. O. D. Md. 
 In re Smith, 2 Am. B. R. 190, J. O. W. D. Tex. 
 In re Russie, 3 Am. B R 6. J. O. D. Ore. 
 In re Legge, 96 Fed. 326, J. O. D. Conn. 
 In re Dauhner, 96 Fed. 805, J. O. D. Ore. 
 In re Cohh, 96 Fed. 831, J. O. E. D. N. C. 
 In re Hammond, 98 Fed 845, J. 0. D. Mass. 
 
105 
 
 Proviso. In re Steele Co., 2 N. B. N. 281, J. 0. 8. D. la. 
 
 In re "Weil & Co. 2 N. B. N. 292, R. O. D. Utah. 
 In re Diack, 2 N B. N. 354. R. 0. 8. D. N. Y. 
 In re Lange, 91 Fed. 361. J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Steele, 98 Fed. 78, J. O. 8 D. la. 
 
 CI. 6 In re Baudpuine, 1 N. B. N. 506, J. O. S. D. N. Y.; s. c. 97 Fed; 5381 
 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, R. O. N. D. N. C. 
 In re Haensell, 1 Am. B. R. 288, J. O. N. D. Cal.; p. c. 91 Fed. 355. 
 In re Cobb, 96 Fed. 281, J. O. E. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. b In re Etheridge Furniture Co., 1 N. B. N. 139, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In re Grimes, 1 N. B. N. 516, J. O. N. D. N. C; s. c. 96 Fed. 529 ; 2 Am. 
 
 R. 730. 
 In re Thompson, 2 Am. B. R. 216, R. O. W. D. Pa.' 
 In re Ohio Cooperative Co., 2 Am. B. R. 775, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 Southern Loan & Trust Co. vs. Benbow, 3 Am. B. R. 9, J. O. N. D-. N. C. 
 In re Sanborn, 3 Am. B. R. 54, J. O. D. Vt. 
 In re Worland, 92 Fed. 893, J. O. N. D. la. 
 In re Pittelkow, 92 Fed. 901 J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 
 R 
 
 Subtl. c 
 
 Subd. d. 
 
 In re Rider, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Subd. e In re Grabs, 1 N. B. N. 164, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Adams, 1 N. B. N. 167, R. O. N. D. N. Y. . 
 
 In re Buntrock Clothing Co., 1 N. B. N. 228, J, O. N. D. la. 
 
 In re Knost, 1 N. B. N. 403, R. O. S. D. Ohio. ; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 471. 
 
 In re Nunn, 1 N. B. N. 427, R. O. S. D. Ga.; s. c. 2 Am. B. R. 664. 
 
 In re Taylor, 1 N. B. N.'513, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 Robinson vs. White, 1 K B. N. 518, J. O. D. Ind. 
 
 In re Leigh Bros,, 1 N. B. N. 526, J. O. D. Col.; s. c. 96 Fed. 806. 
 
 In re Griffith, 1 N. B. N. 546, R. O. E. D. Tenn. 
 
 In re Francis-Valentine Co., 2 Am. B. R. 522, C. C. A. 9. 
 
 In re Leigh Bros., 2 Am. B. R. 606, R. O. D. Colo. 
 
 In re Baudouine, 3 Am. B. R. 55, J' 0. S. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Gutwillig, 90 Fed. 475, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 
Subtl. t 
 SEC. 71 
 Suftd. a 
 
 106 
 In re Rider, 1 N. B. N. 483, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 Parmenter vs. Hamilton. 1 N. B. N. 8, Sup. Ct. Mass. ; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 39. 
 
 Snyder vs. Simon, 1 N. B. N. 13. 
 
 In re Bruss-Ritter Co., 1 N. B. N. 39, J. O. E. D. Wis.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 58. 
 
 Devlin vs. Hill, 1 N. B. N. 41, J. O. D. Minn. 
 
 Cruthers vs. Curtis, 118 B. N. 41, J. O. S. D. 111.; s. c. 1 Am. B. R. 440. 
 
 In re McKay, 1 N. B N. 133, R. O. N. D. Ohio. 
 
 In re Adams, 3 Am. B. R. 94, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Eiheridge Co., 1 Am. B. R. 113, J. O. D. Ky. 
 
 In reSievers, 1 Am. B: R. 117, J. O- E. D. Mo. 
 
 In re McKee, 1 Am. B. R. 311, Co. Ct. Ky. 
 
 In re Meyers, 1 Am B. R. 347, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 
 In re Rennie, 3 Am. B R. 183, R. O. D. Ind. Ter. 
 
 Proviso. In re Buelow. 3 N. B. N. 330, J. O. D. Wash. 
 
 Leideigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengel, 3 Am. B R 383, C. C. A. 6. 
 Blake vs. Francis, 89 Fed. 691, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 In re Bruss-Bitter Co., 90 Fed. 651, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Gutwillig, 90 Fed, 475, J. O. S. D. N. Y. 
 In re Brown, 91 Fed. 858, J. O. D. Ore. 
 
 Subd. b In re Sievers, 1 N. B. N. 63, J. O. E. D. Mo. ; s. c 91 Fed. 366. 
 Parmenter vs. Hamilton, 1 Am. B. R. 39, Sup. Ct. Mass. 
 In re Bruss-Ritter Co. 1 Am. B. R. 58, J. O. E. D. Wis. 
 In re Meyers 1 Am. B. R. 317, R. O. N. D. N. Y. 
 Blake vs. Francis Valentine, 1 Am. B. R. 373, J. O. N. D. Cal. 
 State ex rel Strohl vs. Judges, 3 Am. B. R. 93 Sup. Ct. Wash. 
 Dean vs. Justices, 3 Am. B. R. 163, Sup. Ct. Ma?s. 
 Leidigh Carriage Co. vs. Stengel, 3 Am. B. R, 363, C. C. A. 6. 
 In re Wright, 3 Am. B. R. 593, J. O. D. Mass. 
 McCollough vs. Goodheart, 3 Am. B. R. 85, Co. Pleas, Pa. 
 In re Curtis, 91 Fed. 737, J. O. S. D. 111. 
 In re Smith, 93 Fed. 135. J. O. D. Ind. 
 In re Etheridge Furniture Co., 93 Fed. 339, J. O. D. Ky.