Buffum

This action was brought by the trustee in bankruptcy to recover property alleged to have been fraudulently transferred by the bankrupt while insolvent, and is predicated upon section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 USCA § 110(e), and section 3439 of the California Civil Code, which is as follows: “§ 3439. Transfers, etc., with Intent to Defraud Creditors. Every transfer of property or charge thereon made, every obligation incurred, and every judicial proceeding taken, with intent to delay or defraud any creditor or other person of his demands, is void against all creditors of the debtor, and their successors in interest, and against any person upon whom the estate of the debtor devolves in trust for the benefit of others than the debtor.”

The plaintiff alleges that on February 25, 1927, a voluntary petition in bankruptcy was filed by Henry Joseph Barceloux, who will hereinafter be referred to as “the bankrupt,” or as “Henry”; that on February 25, 1928 [sic] he. was adjudicated a bankrupt; that on April 27, 1926, while the bankrupt was president and managing director of the Peter Barceloux Company, which will hereinafter be referred to as “the company,” he executed and delivered to…

On Petition for Rehearing.

Appellee’s petition for rehearing calls attention to the fact that the order of the court heretofore made ignores the situation arising from the fact that stock other than that of Peter Barceloux Company 'was pledged for the indebtedness due that company. This stock is alleged by the appellee in his complaint to be of the value of $2,100’ at the time of the pledgee’s sale, August 16, 1926. The master found the value of this stock to be $2,158. This amount ($2,158) should be credited upon the indebtedness due the Peter Barceloux Company as of the date of the sale. The order heretofore made is modified to that extent, namely, that the credit of $33,-184.41 be reduced by partial payment as of the date of the sale, to wit, August 16, 1926, by $2,158.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Many of the assignments and specifications have not been prepared in accordance with the rules of this eourt. Repeatedly there has been failure to “quote the full substance of the evidence admitted or rejected” to enable one to make an intelligent ruling without having recourse to the transcript and even to the exhibits. While a federal court would be technically justified in disregarding such faulty assignments and specifications altogether, I have preferred to waive formal defects and considered all the specifications except one.

On the other hand, the appellee complains that the appellant’s specifications 12 to 17, inclusive, point out alleged errors made by the master that were not before the trial court, on exceptions appearing in the record. Examination of the transcript, however, will disclose that the subject-matter of the six specifications complained of, especially specification 17, was, in substance at least, covered by the defendant’s exceptions to the master’s report. All these exceptions were overruled by the lower eourt.'

I will therefore consider all the specifications of error except one (specification 17a).

The first two assignments deal with the power of a…