McFarland

The appeal is from an order authorizing the sale of property of appellant, a farmer debtor, under a trust deed wherein a creditor, the West Coast Life Insurance Company, is beneficiary, and its coappellee is trustee.

On March 20, 1939, appellant filed his petition and schedules for relief under § 75, subs, a to r, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 , subs, a to r. The matter was immediately referred to a conciliation commissioner.

On April 5, 1939, a creditors’ meeting was held at which appellant submitted his plan of compromise and extension. On April 14, 1939, the conciliation commissioner filed the plan with the court together with a report stating that the proposal had been accepted in writing by a majority in number and amount of the creditors. The report criticized certain features of the plan but recommended its confirmation. Notice was given of a hearing before the judge to be held on the 16th of June, 1939, for confirmation of the proposed composition and for hearing objections thereto. Appellees filed objections to the plan in opposition to its confirmation, and appellant filed exceptions to certain portions of the commissioner’s report.

On June 6, 1939,…

I concur in the conclusion reached. I believe, however, that the phrase in subdivision o of section 75, quoted in the main opinion, 1 refers to a hearing and report by the conciliation commissioner upon the petition for leave to enforce a lien upon the property of the farmer. As stated in the main opinion, the appellant consented to a hearing of the application by the court before the hearing on the confirmation of the proposal for composition and extension. The appellant did not object to the hearing of the application of the appellee for leave to sell upon the ground that a prior hearing before the conciliation commissioner was necessary. Not having made the point in the court below he cannot make it in this court. The statement of points on an appeal by the appellant does not designate a failure on the part of the court to submit the petition for leave to sell to the conciliation commissioner for heáring prior to. the hearing before the judge and the specifications of error in appellant’s brief do not designate such an error. On the contrary, the appellant states the question on appeal as follows: “The question therefore is, did the Court have jurisdiction and power to make…