Bernards

This case, which began as a farmer-debtor proceeding under § 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 , has had a lengthy history in both trial and appellate-courts. The earlier proceedings are described in our opinion on a former appeal, 103 F.2d 567 , and in the opinion of the Supreme Court on certiorari, 314 U.S. 19 , 62 S.Ct. 30 , 86 L.Ed. 11 .

We will not go over the same matters, again. Enough to say that through foreclosure certain creditors — appellees here —obtained title to and possession of parcels of the debtors’ property, and that a trustee in bankruptcy was appointed to liquidate the balance of the estate. On the appeals-above mentioned the debtors attempted unsuccessfully to obtain a reversal of those proceedings. After mandate went down they undertook, with equal futility, to> renew a battle already lost.

On January 8, 1943, they filed a motion in the bankruptcy -court asking for six separate orders. The substance of this motion was that the court reconsider and vacate prior adverse orders, and that the-debtors be afforded the relief to which they *229 claimed to be entitled under § 75, sub. s, of the Act. This motion was denied by the court January 30,…