was held to be sufficient upon the issue that the seller had waived its right ⚫ to return unmerchantable goods. Re Nathan, C. C. A., 200 Fed. 379. The court refused to consider the question whether there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the referee that an order should be made directing the production by the bankrupt of missing books of account. Re Soloway & Katz, 195 Fed. 103. The certificate should contain a detailed summary of the evidence, not a mere statement of conclusions. Re Petersen, 252 Fed. 846. In the absence of a request there can be no objection because the testimony was not rereturned verbatim. Lackawanna Leather Co. v. La Porte Carriage Co., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 318. Where the record showed no request that the master state, in his report, the character of the evidence upon which certain findings were based, or whether his findings were based on evidence received under objection, it was held that his omission of such was no error. Re Graves, 182 Fed. 443. Counsel cannot by consent agree upon the effect of the testimony when it is not summarized by the referee. Re Petersen, 252 Fed. 846. But see Re Williams, 252 Fed. 924. Where there is no summary or report of the evidence, the referee's findings of fact will not be reviewed, unless on the face of his certificate they appear to be erroneous. Re Miller, 225 Fed. 331; Re Murphy, 225 Fed.

392; Re Schultz & Guthrie, 235 Fed. 907. Where a letter which seemed inconsistent with a finding might for anything appearing to contrary have been overcome by other remedies; Re Avoca Silk Co., 241 Fed. 607; Re J. W. Lavery & Son, 244 Fed. 959; Re Golub, 245 Fed. 512.

Where the issues were referred to a special master by consent, it was held that the court had no discretionary power to set aside his report; Re Senoia Duck Mills, 193 Fed. 711; and that the findings of fact could not be reviewed. Grant v. Nat. Bank of Aurburn, 232 Fed. 201. See supra, § 475.

57 Re T. L. Kelly Dry Goods Co., 102 Fed. 747; Re Kurtz, 125 Fed. 992.

58 Ibid. Rulings upon ordinary matters of practice will not be reviewed. Re Graboyes, 228 Fed. 574. Where no party asked that an order be certified to the court for review, it was not reviewed on a report by the referee of his entire proceedings, including such order. Re Kimmel, 183 Fed. 665. Re Stokes, 185 Fed. 994. Contra, Re Monongahela Distillery Co., 186 Fed. 220. On a petition to review an order of a referee, the court will not review the order of reference. Re Graff, 255 Fed. 239.

59 Re Home Discount Co., 147 Fed. 538. An exception, Re Bartman, 242 Fed. 595, or an appeal, Re Octave Mining Co., 212 Fed. 457, unaccompanied by a petition

is insufficient. In the absence of a rule of court upon the subject, no formal exceptions are required. Re People's Department Store Co., 159 Fed. 286.

A person who had filed no petition to review was not allowed to intervene under a petition filed by another when his own time to file had expired and the original petitioner wished to dismiss his application, Re L. & R. Wister & Co., 237 Fed. 793.

60 Re Samuel Wilde's Sons, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 972. Contra, Re Stucky Trucking & Rigging Co., 240 Fed. 427. A question not involved in the issues made before the referee will rarely, if ever, be considered. Re Sam Z. Lorch & Co., 199 Fed. 944. Contra, Re Kellar, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 830. The court may remand the case to the referee for further hearing upon the facts; Moore v. Crandall, C. C. A., 205 Fed. 689; Re J. C. Wilson & Co., 252 Fed. 631; or for additional finding, Re Hawley Down Draft Furnace Co., 214 Fed. 500.

same. Re Foss, 147 Fed. 790. Where, subsequent to the confirmation of an order disallowing claims, the Circuit Court of Appeals in another case so construed the statute as to permit such claims to be proved, the case was sent back to the referee more than five months after such confirmation. Re Keyes, 160 Fed. 763. The matter is often regulated by a rule of court. In S. D. N. Y., ten days, unless the time is extended by the referee or the court. S. D. N. Y. B'k'cy. Rule 15. See Re Nichols, 166 Fed. 603. In E. D. Pa., ten days. Re T. M. Lesher & Son, 176 Fed. 650. Re Wister, 232 Fed. 899. In N. D. Ia., 10 days. Re Kruse, 234 Fed. 470.

In the Western District of Washington, ten days. Re Nippon Trading Co., 182 Fed. 959, where the petition by inadvertence was filed with the clerk, instead of with the referee, and the mistake was corrected after the expiration of the time allowed by the rule for filing the same. In the District of Maryland, 30 days. Re Wink, 206 Fed. 348, the time begins to run from the entry of the referee's order if one is made not from the announcement of his decision. Re Place, 224 Fed. 778. It has been held that the time can be extended before or after the expiration of the alloted period. Re Grant, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 132. See Re Libby 253 Fed. 278.

der XXVII; Craddock-Terry Co. v. Kaufman, 175 Fed. 303; McNeil v. McCormack, C. C. A., 182 Fed. 808. The bankrupts are entitled to notice of the proceeding before the court. Re Magen, 179 Fed. 572. Cf. supra, § 429; but not of the application to the referee for the certificate, Re Magen, 179 Fed. 572. Where the certificate made no specific finding of contemptuous acts, the application was denied. Re Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 193 Fed. 781. There will be no punishment if the order of the referee was beyond his jurisdiction. Re Soloway & Katz, 195 Fed. 100. An order of commitment for contempt is not void so that it can be questioned collaterally because it was not preceded by a certificate of the referee. U. S. v. Henkel, 185 Fed. 553. There may be a question as to whether there will be a commitIment, before the final report of the referee, when no party to the proceeding has requested the referee to make such a certificate. See Re Kimmel, 183 Fed. 665. The court cannot authorize the referee to carry an order or judgment into effect by the commitment of a person for contempt. Smith v. Bedford, C. C. A., 106 Fed. 658. It

has been held that a rule requiring the bankrupt to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for refusing to answer "sundry questions" put to him, during his examination before the referee, is sufficient, although it does not set out the questions, where it refers to the transcript filed with the certificate of the referee, in which they fully appear. U. S. v. Goldstein, 132 Fed. 789. The propriety of the order by the referee, which has been disobeyed, cannot then be considered, provided that it was within his jurisdiction. Re Home Discount Co., 147 Fed. 538.

§ 638a. 130 St. at L. 544, 547, §3. At the first meeting of the creditors, any one whose name appears in the schedule of creditors. Re Jehu, 94 Fed. 638, and it seems that, at any time, any person who gives to the referee prima facie evidence of his claim, may obtain an examination of the bankrupt, even if the debt has not been regularly proved. Re Price, 91 Fed. 635; Re Schenkein, 113 Fed. 421; Re Kuffler, 153 Fed. 667; Re Samuelsohn, 174. Fed. 911. But it seems that a preferred creditor cannot conduct an examination un

less he relinquishes his preference, Re Schenkein, 113 Fed. 421. See Re Price, 95 Fed. 655. Such an examination may be had at the request of the bankrupt's receiver. Re Fleischer, 151 Fed. 81, 18 Am. B. R. 197. See supra, § 634. No formal order is required for the examination of the bankrupt at the first meeting of his creditors, Re Price, 91 Fed. 635; nor perhaps at the time and place to which the same is adjourned, Ibid; but, if his examination is desired at another creditors' meeting, an order must be obtained and ten days' notice given to all the creditors, Re Peters, 1 Am. B. R. 248; Re Westfall Bros., 8 Am. B. R. 431; Remington on Bankruptcy, § 1542. Upon an examination of a bankrupt at a creditors' meeting fixed by statute, a subpoena duces tecum is not required to justify an order directing him to produce books of account, Re Soloway & Katz, 195 Fed. 103. Such an order may be supported by testimony presented at the creditors' meeting, Ibid; but an application for such an order, when not made at the meeting, must be made upon notice to the bankrupt, Re Soloway & Katz, 195 Fed. 100; although the petition need not be verified therefor, Ibid.

A general order requiring alleged bankrupts, who were mercantile partners and resided at a distance from the referee, to appear for examination prior to the adjudication, and to produce all their books of account and other writings, and memoranda "from which might be

ascertained any of the matters and things to be covered in said examination,' was held to be too broad and erroneous, Rawlins v. Hall-Epps Clothing Co., C. C. A., 217 Fed. 884. It was held, in the Fifth Circuit, that the certificate of a referee that the alleged involuntary bankrupt refused to submit to an examination before adjudication upon an application for a receiver, was not sustained as an application of the creditors for an order to examine the bankrupt. Craddock-Terry Co. V. Kaufman, 175 Fed. 303.

230 St. at L. 544, 561, § 58a, as amended 36 St. at L. 838. Re Franklin Syndicate, 101 Fed. 402. It was held that a person adjudged a bankrupt upon an involuntary petition may be ordered to attend before the referee for examination, before the first meeting of his creditors and the appointment of a trustee; and, if the examination is limited to obtaining information on which to prepare the schedules, that it is not essential to the validity of the proceedings that ten days' notice thereof by mail should have been given to creditors. Re Walker, 96 Fed. 550.

3 Re Price, 91 Fed. 635. If no examination has previously been had, the notice to creditors to attend in opposition to the discharge should embrace also a notice of the examination of the bankrupt; and the testimony thereupon should be taken at the expense of the creditors, Ibid; Re Schenkein, 113 Fed. 421; Re Kuffier, 153 Fed. 667.