Beecher

This appeal was considered in connection with appeal No. 10391, 9 Cir., 153 F.2d 982 , in which we this day held that appellant debtor was entitled to (a) an order staying proceedings against him or any of his property for a period of three years, and (b) the rent paying possession of the property provided in section 75, sub. s(2), of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 203, sub. s(2), and (c) that such possession of his property as the appellant has had prior to his rent paying tenancy under 75, sub. s (2), is that of a trustee for the creditors under the supervision and control of the court.

The district court was dissatisfied with appellant’s administration of the property *988 and ordered appointed first a temporary and later a permanent receiver. Appellant appeals from these orders and from the order confirming the first report of the receiver. The ground of the appeals is not that a receiver was not needed or beneficial' to the estate but that the district court is without power to appoint one under any circumstances. , . , ■,

We agree with the holding in In re Armold, 7 Cir., 83 F.2d 530 , stated at page 531, that “appellant erroneously assumes that the court had no power…