*1 Before HOLMES, and Mc- CORD, Judges. Circuit HOLMES, Judge. This an order setting aside a adjudication former order of bankruptcy under 75(s) Bankruptcy 203(s), U.S.C.A. § and dismissing because the was not filedin faith and there was no of rehabilitation. lifetime, During her appellant’s intes- tate filed her composi- debts, or extension of her and submit- ted her offer at the first meeting of credi- refused, tors. The offer she filed her amendеd under Section 75(s), adjudicated praying provided. the relief afforded order of ed, therein regularly enter- for the collection of debts and enforcement of stay- liens were procedure ed in accordance with pre- Thereafter, scribed the act. the bank- died, appellant, having qualified as administrator, petitioned to be allowed tо proceed in Appellee behalf her estate. appearance opposition entered its ap- pellant’s petition, alleging that the order enterеd; improvidently that no offer of in had been made prior adjudication; that no liquidation been sub- offer; with the that there was no mitted *2 366 rehabilitation; 203(a)-(r) necessary prerequisites the hоpe that to of reasonable provided lien con- the appellee (s), held a benefits under upon land subsection which (s). Savings was 11 U.S.C.A. 203 Baxter corpus and v. of the estate the stituted § Utica, Cir., lien, supra, Bank of 5 92 F.2d the than amount of worth less the 406; estate; Henderson, Cir., pray- and re 5 leaving equity for the 100 set ed the order of be that ,, . . aside and the case dismissed. . .. . _ _ authоrity to , , As the contention that the . . Supervising to the Con- On a reference t0 dismiss does not exist district the had, Commissioner, hearing was dilation courtj expressly not because conferred found that after the which the ^ it should be noted that the eral Commissioner^ composition proposed plan the of and ex bankruptcy provision act contains no au faith; goоd m that tension was not made tllorizing a dlsmissai for fraud lack of bankrupt appellant had the nor neither jurisdiction. It is true that the rehabilitation; plan and that the of jurisdiction, being limited in court is its appellee m ex amount of the debt to was by statute but it is a court created even so> security whereby cess of the value of the equityj spherej pro. of within its no bene further administration would be of tect itself from used as an instrument adopted the to the estate. The court fit hindering deiaying of creditors when port Conciliation Com Supervising of the petition, filing dеbtor the the was act adjudica order of missioner set aside the ing in hope bad faith and without of re. tion, Rely- proceeding. the and dismissed adjudication stand habitation. To let the рrincipally upon mg the case of Benno Bartelsin such circumstances would to sanction Insurance Co. 5 imposi ^ continuation of unwarranted an
v. John Hancock pr0secutes 3, appdlant 100 thls aP' jurisdiction 81 the of court. pF.2d' Furthermore, petition adjudged to be appeal ground that On the under 75 (s) an perfected under 24a of the Section Bank- prayer petition to of amendment ruptcy (a), 11 U.S.C.A. 47 where- § composition and extension f0r under 75 24b, should have been under as it Section express (a)-(r), as which there is to statu- appellee (b), II moves to dis- U.S.C.A. 47§ authority tory to dismiss because filed appeal. Since the record is miss suf- good argument appellant of faith. The present questions ficient to of law that, although is reduсed to this: there is controversy, of the determinative the statutory authority original to dismiss the overruled, motion dismiss will be to faith, petition good lack this author- brought allowed as under jty prayer lost when the of the ¡amended 24b for' the consideration of the Section by asking to be questions only. v. Savings Baxter though prayer even is amend- Utica, Cir., 404, 405, and Bank of 5 separate pаragraph under ed of the same cited. cases act. principle Added to the that Accepting the law will finding that the of- have, then, sup- not do an idle we to good fer was not mаde and that port the action hope dismissing of the court no reasonable there is tion, of rehabilita- and amendment appeal, appellant’s (1) thereto: as we must on this power bankrupt- proposition the inherent a court of to contention that reduced cy jurisdiction protect abuse; authority court district express statutory power (2) tо dismiss to set aside the dismiss the but'wa,s original under (a)— Section proceeding, bound to continue the the 75 faith, good prayer for lack of provided (r) stay liquidate according petitiоn being para of the amended subject under procedure and to the the limita- ; graph (s) construction (3) the provided Following in the act. act tions v, supreme Wright by the Vinton concеive be the in- what we correct Branch, supra, upholding its constitution- Wright case of terpretation of the v. Vin- ground Bank, ality on the ton Branch Mountain Trust 300 put L.Ed. court has 112 end U.S. 57 S.Ct. A. faith; filed in (4) held that wе have faith and L.R. Brandéis, opinion Mr. hope rehabilitation in reasonable Justice to, only by relief under 75 obtained leading as well in male- proceedings - attempt, has made a bona composition and extension who fide offer of 'one ing, the act', failed, under 75 of the U.S.C.A. under Section § by his state- fails followed to obtain (a)-(r), the consent of his Section all rea- liquidated of extension that “if ment rehabilitation, course, and as of financial as the debtor sonable be (?) 75 cannot (s) permits under section him with *3 post- any expected any еffect out to have conditions to amend his whatever proceed- liquidation, and ask to poning inevitable a outset.” 300 U.S. ings voluntary halted at the When that is he is bank done rupt, ruptcy lаw, 4(>2, page general If further comes under the bank page S.Ct. needed, implication except is found as Subsection it provides that the court modified The (i), it. main modification is that in 75 shаll surrendering property if satisfied that instead of proposal all his confirm acceptance request at once he on it keep offer and supervised by terms fixed the сourt faith. years’ with a view of rehabilitat *re? judgment The district court íor *armer as such. He is still a bank affirmed rupt during the effort at rehabilitation. If appears he he keep fails to terms оr it Judge (concurring). wjn able to refinance himself years, three or if rehabilitation fails be Henderson, In the case pursuing cause secured rights their creditors 820, farmer-debtor away, takе the farm the rehabilitation Bankruptcy Act under Sect. 75 fails, of course farmer still in bankrupt. adjudicated a not been voluntary bankruptcy. A secured creditor Bartels, Cir., of Benno cаse dismiss the proceeding cannot set on motion or present adjudicated. The case he had been adjudication. right aside His on decision, directly the latter falls grounds, sufficiеnt have security his aban adjudged a bank had been Modena Wilson doned to him there is no equity for the secured years for about two when the estate, or have him, the court sell it got a revocation of on motion creditor adjudication permit or him to foreclose. farmer The pro and a dismissal of and his other go are entitled to exposi persist in сreditors. ceedings. thinking I adjudication, ahead on this in the Benno tion of Bartels case case can be dismissed and Section tobe Section 74 correct. only after notice to creditors. As in con U.S.C.A. §§ case, this, Bartels Benno so in the secured composite together legislation. strued creditor, might while he have asked separate distinguish Each schemе to be lease or a sale of security his the court per any other. In Section 74 ed from the son urged, f°r the reasons he had no standing corporation, whether in or out have the 1° set aside and the bankruptcy, of and obtain the case dismissed. provided relief. provides Nevertheless, in bank (?) in the circumstances here disclosed, ruptcy if the proceеding this erroneous action no did one prolonged purpose harm. The secured gets or for the op- commenced creditor portunity to foreclose delaying delaying an ad on security, his equity pro There tate, no in it confirmation of judication, posal no other es- denied, possible except and no that in the case of slight benefit unseсured adjudication, consent to indebtedness in farmer he must continuing the up organi bankruptcy. more elaborate Section 75 sets debtor herself was dead zation, discharge and a including good, conciliation commission would do her no regular While ers, only course applies it would have farmers. It been con to abandon the- provisions repeti farm thе secured credi- tains several which are tor, and close the estate what was enacted a trus- tions but pendent assets, tee because there are no the two are course shows inde accomplishes taken the same thing. one another and one Be- includes other, injury cause anyone is in I nothing because it con- affirming judgment. cur Under Section 75 the farmer-debtor who