delivered the opinion of the Court.
During the night immediately following the filing of a bankruptcy petition the president of a bankrupt corporation withdrew the bulk of the merchandise by steаlth and lodged it in hiding places known only to himself. Part has been retrieved; part is still concealed. The District Court, confirming the report of a rеferee, made a turnover order for the return by the respondent of the property withheld. On the ground that the order was void for indefiniteness the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed it, except as to a few items no longer contested. 63 F. (2d) 749. A writ of certiorari, sued out by the trusteе in bankruptcy, brings the case here.
The bankrupt corporation began the business of the sale of drugs on May 26,1930, and was thrown into bankruptcy the fоllowing February. The respondent, Dasher, was its president, and he, his wife and his infant son were the holders of the shares. The cost of all the merchandise owned by the bankrupt during the life of the business was $72,551.82; the sales, less the gross profits, were $23,056.01. There .should have been on hand at the bankruptcy mer *108 сhandise of the value at cost of $49,495.81. Only $29,-754.16 in value has come into the possession of the trustee or the receiver. Much of this would have bеen lost to the creditors if it had not been unearthed from the hiding-places where it had been concealed by the respondent. The vаlue at cost of the undelivered' residue is nearly $20,000. Of this residue a few items ($583.69) have identifying marks or labels. The propriety of a turnover order as to these is no longer disputed. There is left an ultimate residue ($19,157.66 in value) secreted by the respondent and still withheld from the estate.
The refereе, after giving the respondent an opportunity to account for the disposition of the assets, has ordered the return of this undelivered residue. The findings describe it as the “ balance of merchandise in the hands of the said R. F. Dasher at the time of bankruptcy at a cost price valuе of $19,157.66, of a class of merchandise shown by the proofs of claim to -have been purchased on the credit of the bankrupt corporation and delivered to it, and of such a class of merchandise as is usually carried and sold in a retail drug store, but which is not capable of a more specific description, such more specific description being known only to the respondent in this cause.” The desсription in the findings is repeated in the order with unimportant verbal changes.
The respondent has made away with goods belonging to the estate and defiantly withholds them. So the referee has found upon evidence not in the return and hence presumably sufficient. The process of computation and inference outlined in his report and leading up to his conclusion has support in many cases. See, e.g.,
In re H. Magen Co.,
10 F. (2d) 91, 93, 94;
In re Chavkin,
Misunderstanding of the mandate is upon the facts in this record an illusory peril. The order gives the only description that the nature of the case allows. The respondent, and no one else, is in a position to supply a better one. The mandate is addressed to him, and to him its meaning is definite, hоwever indefinite to others. If it is clear enough to be understood, it is clear enough to be obeyed. “All evidence,” said Lord Mansfield in
Blatch
v.
Archer,
1 Cowper 63, 65, “ is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced and in the power of the оther side to have contradicted.”
Kirby
v.
Tallmadge,
An argument is based upon embarrassments that may clog the enforcement of other remedies hereafter. Thе respondent, it is said, may refuse to comply with the order and may be sent to jail till he obeys. If later he repents and tenders a stock of gоods to the trustee, the marshal faill not know whether the tender is complete and will be unable to determine, whether to hold him or to let him go. Sеe In re Miller & Harbaugh, 54 F. (2d) 612, 616. Embarrassments such as these, contingent and imaginary, will be resolved when they develop. The description of the merchandise might be much more definite than it is without enabling a marshal to identify a stock in trade, unaided by the advice of those acquainted with the business. Besides, the court is аlways in reserve, with capacity to act when the dispute becomes acute. If the. respondent makes a genuine effort to restore the secreted goods, there will probably be little difficulty in determining whether the tender is sufficient. At present, the marshal is not before us praying fоr instructions, nor is the respondent yet in jail. We are not to presume that the order will be flouted. Let the respondent yield obedience tо a mandate .intelligible to him, and his liberty is then assured. The *111 law will not be overpatient With his protest that if he persists in his defiance, he may,, be caught in his own snares.
The form of turnover orders in bankruptcy proceedings has been much considered in the federal courts. It has provoked a diffеrence of opinion. In accord with the decision of the court below are decisions of the Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit and the first.
In re Miller & Harbaugh,
54 F. (2d) 612;
In re Goldman,
62 F. (2d) 421, one judge dissenting. The contrary view has been taken in the fourth circuit and the second.
Kirsner
v.
Taliaferro,
The order should be reversed and the cause remanded to the District’ Court with instructions to proceed in ace 'rdance with this opinion.
Reversed.