revision is sought should in some manner be clearly presented. Ross v. Stroh (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 21 Am. B. R. 644, 165 Fed. 628. An appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an order or decree denying an adjudication and dismissing an involuntary petition cannot be entered where the record contains none of the testimony, either in form or substance, returned by the referee and passed upon by the district court. Matter of Murphy (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 36 Am. B. R. 712, 229 Fed. 988. Where a trustee in bankruptcy has filed a petition to sell all the stock in trade and other property of the bankrupt, and appellant has intervened to establish the lien of a chattel mortgage on such property to be satisfied out of the proceeds of sale, and the validity of such mortgage has been attacked by the trustee, it is a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding and the procedure upon appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court is the same as in like cases under the Court of Appeals Act of 1891, and no special findings of fact and conclusions of law in the circuit court of appeals are required, as General Order No. XXXVI, adopted pursuant to § 25-b of the bankruptcy act, does not apply to such a case. In re Standard Telephone & Elec. Co., 216 U. S. 545, 24 Am. B. R. 761, affg. 20 Am. B. R. 761, which affd. 19 Am. B. R. 491, 157 Fed. 106. Other cases citing this order. In re Abraham (C. C. A., 5th Cir.), 2 Am. B. R. 266, 292, 93 Fed. 767; First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Klug, 8 Am. B. R. 12, 186 U. S. 204; Jaquith v. Alden, 9 Am. B. R. 773, 189 U. S. 78; Hiscock v. Varick Bank of N. Y., 18 Am. B. R. 1, 208 U. S. 28, affg. 15 Am. B. R. 362, 142 Fed. 445; Bacon v. Roberts (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 421, 146 Fed. 729; Armstrong v. Fernandez, 19 Am. B. R. 746, 750, 208 U. S. 324; In re Cooper Bros. (D. C., Pa.), 20 Am. B. R. 392, 159 Fed. 956; Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergh (Sup. Ct., U. S.), 25 Am. B. R. 66, 68, 218 U. S. 299; Hill v. Western Electric Co. (C. C. A., 6th Cir.), 32 Am. B. R. 332, 214 Fed. 243; Matter of Krecun (C. C. A., 7th Cir.), 36 Am. B. R. 172, 229 Fed. 711. XXXVII. GENERAL PROVISIONS In the proceedings in equity, instituted for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the act, or for enforcing the rights and remedies given by it, the rules of equity practice established by the Supreme Court of the United States shall be followed as nearly as may be. In proceedings at law, instituted for the same purpose, the practice and procedure in cases at law shall be followed as nearly as may be. But the judge may, by special order in any case, vary the time allowed for return of process, for appearance and pleading, and for taking testimony and publication, and may otherwise modify the rules for the preparation of any particular case so as to facilitate a speedy hearing. [Last half of General Order XXII, 1867, without material change.] Equity practice. The district court, being a court of equity in bankruptcy matters, is a court of equity for all purposes in such matters, and all the principles and rules of equity apply. In re Huddleston (Ref., Ala.), 1 Am. B. R. 572, 574. Under this general order the rules of equity practice "must be followed as near as may be." Ex parte Steele (D. C., Ala.), 20 Am. B. R. 575, 606, 162 Fed. 694. It is well settled that, except in certain specified particulars, proceedings in bankruptcy are of an equitable nature. In re Waugh (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 13 Am. B. R. 187, 192, 133 Fed. 281. Application of order.- Shute v. Patterson (C. C. A., 8th Cir.), 17 Am. B. R. 99, 102, 147 Fed. 509; Matter of Fleischer (D. C., N. Y.), 18 Am. B. R. 194, 197, 151 Fed. 81. Unler the provisions of this general order, which extends the equity rules of the Supreme Court to "proceedings in equity," failure to file an answer to a petition seeking to expunge a claim justifies a decree pro confesso under Rule 18, carrying the ordinary incidents and consequences of such a decree. In re Docker-Foster Co. (D. C., Pa.), 10 Am. B. R. 584, 123 Fed. 190. Where a petition in involuntary proceedings, in conformity with this general order, stated that the claims of the petitioning creditors were for goods sold and delivered, and that the alleged bankrupts purchased the same within one year from the date of the execution of the petition, and were provable claims, it is unnecessary to state when the several amounts became due, the amount of the securities held nor the manner in which their value was fixed. Matter of Hark Bros. (D. C., Pa.), 14 Am. B. R. 400, 135 Fed. 603. Application of equity rules in bankruptcy proceedings. This general order does not make the General Equity Rules applicable as rules of court in the performance of the administrative work of the courts of bankruptcy. They may be looked to for analogies but not for rules. International Harvester Co. v. Carlson (C. C. A., 8th Cir.), 33 Am. B. R. 178, 217 Fed. 736; Matter of Hughes (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 44 Am. B. R. 447, 262 Fed. 500. A proceeding for the confirmation of a composition is not one of those to which General Order 37 makes the Supreme Court equity rules applicable, nor is it covered by local rule 23, requiring all appealable decisions in equity or admiralty to be supplemented by a "formal decree giving effect thereto." Matter of Brookstone Mfg. Co. (C. C. A., 1st Cir.), 39 Am. B. R. 552, 239 Fed. 697. Summary proceedings. This general order applies only to equity proceedings, properly so called, and not to summary proceedings by the trustee to compel the bankrupt to turn over money to him. Matter of Cunney (D. C., Mass.), 35 Am. B. R. 617, 225 Fed. 426. Other cases citing this order. In re Keisler (Ref., Wis.), 2 Am. B. R. 79; In re Strait (Ref., N. Y.), 2 Am. B. R. 308; In re Lipset, Leviton & Co. (Ref., N. Y.), 9 Am. B. R. 32, 34; In re Glass (D. C., Tenn.), 9 Am. B. R. 391, 399, 119 Fed. 509; In re Williams (D. C., Tenn.), 10 Am. B. R. 538, 543, 123 Fed. 321; In re Henschel (Spec. Com., N. Y.), 12 Am. B. R. 31; In re Barrett (D. C., Tenn.), 12 Am. B. R. 626, 636, 132 Fed. 362; In re Kenney & Co. (D. C., Ind.), 14 Am. B. R. 611, 615, 136 Fed. 451; Matter of McIntyre & Co. (C. C. A., 2d Cir.), 24 Am. B. R. 4, 40, 176 Fed. 552; Matter of Pierce, Jr. (D. C., Wash.), 32 Am. B. R. 96, 210 Fed. 389; Matter of Loughran (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 33 Am. B. R. 350, 218 Fed. 619, affg. 32 Am. B. R. 330. XXXVIII. FORMS The several forms annexed to these general orders shall be observed and used, with such alterations as may be necessary to suit the circumstances of any particular case. Construction of statute: orders and forms.- Seek the meaning and intent of the law first and follow that rather than the order or form, and if the latter are not harmonious each with the other, seek the meaning and intent of the order and follow it rather than the form. In re Soper and Slada (Ref., N. Y.), 1 Am. B. R. 193. Forms; use of. The forms are not designed to effect any change in the law. They are forms and nothing more. Thus, it has been held that the failure of a bankrupt to precisely observe "Schedule B (5)" in making a claim for exemptions is not fatal. Burke v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co. (C. C. A., 3d Cir.), 14 Am. B. R. 31, 134 Fed. 562. 66 The brackets used in Form No. 1 for debtor's petition, containing the phrase or has resided or has had his domicile" show that the Supreme Court meant that one or the other of the statements may be used; and they are inserted in the form by way of suggestion of such alterations as may be necessary to suit the circumstances of any particular case. In re Laskaris (Ref., N. Y.), 1 Am. B. R. 480. Other cases citing this order. In re Gerber (C. C. A., 9th Cir.), 26 Am. B. R. 608, 617; Matter of Lenters (D. C., Pa.), 35 Am. B. R. 3, 225 Fed. 878; Pollack v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co. (C. C. A., 8th Cir.), 36 Am. B. R. 835, 233 Fed. 861. |