itself by its purchase and ineffective election. It may be that equity will not give it relief from mistake under the circumstances. It may be that it has acquiesced and may be denied relief on that account. It may be that it has been guilty of laches. But these are questions on the merits. We can not see that they affect the jurisdiction of the court to consider the issue thus raised.

The present proceeding is only another phase of the same litigation, carried on as ancillary to the foreclosure suit, in which the purchasing company was found to be bound by its purchase to pay two-thirteenths of the rentals to the Indianapolis Union Railway. The purchaser seeks to recur to the circumstances under which it attempted to accept liability to pay one-thirteenth of the rental and to reject the other one-thirteenth. It says that, as the Circuit Court of Appeals has held that its attempted election was invalid and ineffective for the purpose, it should have equitable relief from the oppressive obligation to pay two-thirteenths on the ground of its mistake and be permitted to make an election which will relieve it from the contract to pay any rental at all, as it might have done when it became the purchaser. Such a proceeding is certainly ancillary to the enforcement of the decree of sale and the contract of purchase. Rosenbaum v. Council Bluffs Insurance Company, 37 Fed. 724; Bradshaw v. Miners' Bank of Joplin, 81 Fed. 902. Clearly it is a natural and closely proximate sequence of the sale by the court and requires the interpretation of its decree and the attempted election of the purchaser under it and the consideration of its effort to correct the alleged inequitable result. "A purchaser or bidder at a master's sale in chancery subjects himself quoad hoc to the jurisdiction of the court and can be compelled to perform his agreement specifically. It would seem that he must acquire a corresponding right to appear and claim, at the hands of the court, such relief as the rules of equity proceedings entitle him to." Blossom v. Railroad Company,

1 Wall. 655, 656. It is well settled that where a bill in equity is necessary to have a construction of an order or decree of a federal court, or to explain, enforce or correct it, a bill of this kind may be entertained by the court entering the decree, even though the parties interested for want of diverse citizenship could not be entitled by original bill in the federal court to have the matter there litigated. Julian v. Central Trust Company, 193 U. S. 93, 113; Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company, 2 Wall. 609, 633; Wabash Railroad v. Albert College, 208 U. S. 38, 54; Hoffman v. McClelland, 264 U. S. 552, 558. The District Court had jurisdiction, and the decree dismissing the petition should be

Reversed.

H. ELY GOLDSMITH, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 320. Argued November 30, 1925-Decided March 1, 1926. 1. Power of the United States Board of Tax Appeals to prescribe rules for admission of attorneys and certified public accountants to practice before it under the Revenue Act of 1924, § 900, 43 Stat. 253, is implied in the other powers conferred by the Act. P. 120.

2. Where the application of a certified public accountant for admission to practice before the Board of Tax Appeals was denied after an ex parte investigation, held that he was entitled to notice and a hearing before the Board upon the charges on which the denial was based. P. 123.

3. Mandamus will not lie summarily to compel the Board to enroll an applicant who has not applied to the Board for a hearing on the charges which caused its denial of his application. P. 123. 55 App. D. C. 229, 4 Fed. (2d) 422, affirmed.

ERROR to a judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia refusing a mandamus to compel the

United States Board of Tax Appeals to admit to practice before it a certified public accountant.

Mr. H. Ely Goldsmith, pro se.

The board has no express authority to make and enforce rules for the admission of attorneys, and there is no authority in the courts to supply omissions of the statutes. Cotheal v. Cotheal, 40 N. Y. 405; Benton v. Wickwire, 54 N. Y. 226; Daly v. Haight, 170 App. Div. 469; F. A. Bank v. Colgate, 120 N. Y. 381. Shoemaker v. Hoyt, 148 N. Y. 425; Morrill v. Jones, 106 U. S. 466.

There is no implied authority of executive departments to prescribe and enforce rules for admission of attorneys. If Congress had intended to give this board such power as is claimed by it, it would have said so specifically. If the respondents had the power to make rules for admission of attorneys they failed to exercise in a proper manner their prerogative of passing upon applications in the case of petitioner. The due process clause in the Constitution entitled petitioner to be heard before an opportunity to make a living in his profession was taken away from him. A substantial right has been invaded by the respondents, and this Court may well determine that they acted arbitrarily, tyrannically and capriciously in refusing the enrollment. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 513. Notwithstanding their powers of subpoena, the defendants form an administrative board, and not a judicial tribunal.

Solicitor General Mitchell and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and Randolph S. Collins, Attorney in the Department of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

H. Ely Goldsmith, a citizen of New York and qualified to practice as a Certified Public Accountant by certificate

issued under the laws of that State, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia asking for a writ of mandamus against the United States Board of Tax Appeals created by the Revenue Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 336, Title IX, § 900, to compel the Board to enroll him as an attorney with the right to practice before it, and to enjoin the Board from interfering with his appearance before it in behalf of tax-payers whose interests are there being dealt with.

The petition avers that the Board has published rules for admission of persons entitled to practice before it, by which attorneys at law admitted to courts of the United States and the States, and the District of Columbia, as well as certified public accountants duly qualified under the law of any State or the District, are made eligible. The applicant is required to make a statement under oath giving his name, residence and the time and place of his admission to the bar or of his qualification as a public accountant, and disclosing whether he has ever been disbarred or his right to practice as a certified accountant has ever been revoked. The rules further provide that the Board may in its discretion deny admission to any applicant, or suspend or disbar any person after admission.

The petitioner says that pursuant to these rules he made application, showing that he was a public accountant of New York duly certified and that his certificate was unrevoked, that he thereupon filed petitions for taxpayers before the Board, but that he was then advised, September 5, 1924, by the Board that the question of his admission to practice had been referred to a committee for investigation, that in due course he would be notified whether the committee desired him to appear before it and of its action in the premises; and that on September 27 he received notice that his application had been received, considered and denied. So far as appears, he made no further application to the Board to be heard

upon the question of his admission, but filed his petition for mandamus at once. In his petition, he denies the power of the Board to make rules for admission of persons to practice before it.

Upon the filing of the petition, a judge of the Supreme Court of the District ordered a rule against the Board to show cause. The members of the Board answered the rule as if they were individual defendants and set out at considerable length the discharge of the petitioner for improper conduct as examiner of municipal accounts in the office of State Comptroller of New York (People ex rel. Goldsmith v. Travis, 167 Ap]. Div. 475; 219 N. Y. 589) and the rejection of the petitioner as an applicant for admission to practice in the Department of the Treasury because of improper advice to clients, as grounds upon which the committee and the Board had denied his application to practice before it.

To this answer the petitioner replied, consenting to the appearance of individual members of the Board as defendants, denying some of the charges made but averring that they were none of them competent evidence on the issue presented and were merely hearsay, and that the action in New York and in the Treasury Department was due to prejudice against him for doing his duty. To this reply the defendants demurred. Upon the issue thus presented, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for mandamus.

The Court of Appeals of the District affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court (4 Fed. (2nd) 422), and the case has been brought here on error under § 250 of the Judicial Code, as a case in which the construction of a law of the United States is drawn in question.

The chief issue made between the parties is whether the Board of Tax Appeals has power to adopt rules of practice before it by which it may limit those who appear before it to represent the interest of tax-payers to persons