Basic Tool Industries, Inc., appellant herein, appeals to this court from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Central Division, affirming an order of a referee in bankruptcy which determined that appellant’s chattel mortgage was void as against the trustee in bankruptcy. This court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 11 U.S.C.A. § 47 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 .

The facts in the case are generally undisputed. On August 22, 1958, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against Jet Air-Age, Inc., hereinafter called the bankrupt. Prior to that time the bankrupt was engaged in the machine shop business in Gardena, California. Among the bankrupt’s assets taken into possession by the trustee in bankruptcy were various items of machinery, equipment, fixtures, etc., which were the subject of and described in a chattel mortgage in favor of appellant.

During the period from February 19, 1958, to August 5, 1958, appellant made various loans to the bankrupt at the times and in the amounts set out in the margin.

Certain of the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the district court were as follows:

Section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § llOe, provides in part:

It was undisputed that there were a number of the bankrupt’s creditors who had provable claims which arose before March 28, 1958, the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. Furthermore, failure to comply with the “bulk sales” notice provisions of section 3440.1 of the California Civil Code renders a chattel mortgage invalid against creditors of the mortgagor whose claims arose before recordation. Bumb v. United States, 276 F.2d 729 (9th Cir.1960); Mitchell v. Setzler, 84 Cal.App.2d 716 , 191 P.2d 523 (1948). Cf. In re Sassard & Kimball, 45 F.2d 449 (9th Cir.), rev’d sub nom. Moore v. Bay, 284 U.S. 4 , 52 S.Ct. 3 , 76 L.Ed. 133 (1931). Thus, the referee, on the basis of his findings, concluded that the chattel mortgage was in valid as against the trustee in bankruptcy under the provisions of section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110e.

In holding the chattel mortgage in question invalid, the referee and the district court apparently relied upon the decision of this court in Bumb v. United States, supra. The facts in that ease established that there was a note executed for $10,000.00 secured by a chattel mortgage. The notice of intended mortgage under section 3440.1 provided that the consideration for the mortgage would be paid on November 21, 1956. On that day only a portion — $5,850 — of the consideration was paid. The balance was paid in two installments, $2,150 on December 28, 1956, and $2,000 on January 4, 1957. In holding that the chattel mortgage was invalid because there was a substantial deviation in the manner of payment of the consideration from the mode set forth in the notice of intended chattel mortgage, the court said:

The facts in the instant case are strikingly similar to those in the Bumb case. Here the chattel mortgage provided that it was security for a promissory note of $25,000 and future advances of up to $50,000. The notice of intended mortgage stated that the consideration would be paid on March 28, 1958. However, in fact the $25,000 was not transferred on the specified date. The bankrupt did not receive $25,000 in cash on that day; rather, it received only $10,000 in cash and the return of four unsecured notes totaling $25,000. Thus, the consideration was not paid in the manner and mode set out in the notice of intended chattel mortgage.

Appellant further contends that the chattel mortgage was valid as to the $10,000 transferred to the bankrupt on the date specified for the transfer of the consideration of the mortgage in the notice of intended chattel mortgage. This contention is also disposed of by the Bumb case. In Bumb 5&V$ % of the $10,000 consideration was transferred in accordance with the notice of intended chattel mortgage; yet the mortgage was held wholly void rather than valid as to $5,850. Similarly in this case we hold the mortgage wholly void rather than valid as to the $10,000.

The purpose of section 3440.1 is to protect creditors. Bumb v. United States, supra; Jeffery v. Volberg, 159 Cal.App.2d 815 , 324 P.2d 964 (1958). In accordance with the holding in Bumb v. United States, supra, we hold that there was not a proper compliance with the provisions of section 3440.1.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Dates Amounts Dates Amounts February 19, 1958 $ 500.00 March 28, 1958 $ 5,000.00 February 20, 1958 500.00 June 9, 1958 10,000.00 March 7, 1958 500.00 June 12, 1958 4,700.00 March 14, 1958 23,500.00 June 20, 1958 3,300.00 March 21, 1958 5,000.00 August 5, 1958 3,000.00 March 28, 1958 5,000.00 . The pertinent provisions of CaEfornia Civil Codo § 3440.1 are: “ * * * [T]he sale, transfer, assignment, or mortgage of the fixtures or store equipment of a * * * machinist * * * is conclusively presumed fraudulent and void as against existing creditors of the * * * mortgagor, unless before the consummation of the * * * mortgage, * * * the mortgagor * * * or mortgagee does all of the following: “(a) Records at least ten days before the consummation of the * * * mortgage * * * a notice of the intended * * * mortgage, which states the name ane! address of the intended * * * mortgagor and the name and address of the intended * * * mortgagee. The notice shall contain a general statement of the character of the merchandise or property intended to be sold, assigned, transferred, or mortgaged, and show the date and place where the purchase price or consideration is to be paid.” . We do not base our decision on the claimed variance (from 10 a. m. to 10:15 a. m. or 10:30 a. m.) in time of deEvery of the $10,000. . See note 2 supra. . The referee also concluded that the chattel mortgage was invalid under § 70c of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 110c; however, the appellee does not urge affirmance of this conclusion in view of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lewis v. Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, 364 U.S. 603 , 81 S.Ct. 347 , 5 L.Ed.2d 323 (1961). . 276 F.2d at 734-735 .