Weber

This is an appeal by the creditor of the estate of Edward A. Palm, a deceased farmer, having as its principal asset the deceased’s hop farm in California, from an order of the district court denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition of the appellees, special administrators of the deceased’s estate, seeking a farmer debt- or’s relief under the provisions of section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 .

Appellant purports to have ap-* pealed from orders of the district court, one for a crop mortgage to be made by appellees and another authorizing appellees to take possession of and operate the farm. These latter two appeals are ordered dismissed, since the orders were entered on February 21, 1944, and the notice of appeal not filed until June 13, 1944, 28 U.S. C.A. § 230.

The deceased farmer gave appellant his note secured by a deed of trust of the hop farm, providing for the right of its possession in the appellant on default of payment of principal on the note. At the time of farmer Palm’s death in 1934 there was a default entitling appellant to possession. Wilhelmina Palm, the widow of Palm, was the devisee of the farm and in the probate proceedings, still…

(concurring).

I concur in the result.

The orders authorizing appellees to execute a crop mortgage and authorizing them to take possession of the farm were made ex parte. These orders are not ap-pealable under the rule announced by this court in McColgan v. Clark, 4 F.2d 627 , followed in Doyle v. Ponsford, 8 Cir., 136 F.2d 401 . Compare, also, In re Retail Chemists Corporation, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 605 . As held in the McColgan case, no appeal lies from an ex parte judgment or order in bankruptcy, the remedy being to apply to the court to have the same set aside, and if the application is denied, review may be had by appeal from the denial. Accordingly, I think the two appeals mentioned should be dismissed on the ground that the orders were not appealable.