From the evidence submitted on this motion, I am satisfied that the appointment of the receiver was made after the order of reference, but that only a few minutes elapsed between the two, and that the only knowledge or information which the referee had of the latter order was through a message by telephone (not to him directly, but to one of the attorneys of the petitioning creditor) that the order had been made; that the charges against said attorneys that they represented only an inconsiderable claim of 95 cents, and that their application for a receiver was a trick and subterfuge, are untrue. There is no question, however, but that said attorneys were waiting in an office adjoining or near that of the referee for a message by telephone announcing the order of reference, for the purpose of immediately presenting an application for a receiver, and that this plan was adopted, in part, at least, to forestall any similar application from other creditors. Such precipitancy, even where the facts warrant a receiver, is wholly inconsistent with just and orderly procedure, and cannot he looked, upon by this court otherwise than with disapproval. Where the exigencies of a case in bankruptcy require a receiver, and there are conflicting interests seeking the appointment, the officer, whether judge or referee, who is to exercise the high chancery power invoked, ought to know of the situation, to the *242 end that he may act advisedly and with due regard to the rights of all parties. The quéstion whether or not the referee had jurisdiction in this particular instance will now be considered:

Courts of bankruptcy have general equity jurisdiction, under section 2 of the bankrupt act, to appoint receivers. In re Fixen (D. C.) 96 Fed. 748 . And this jurisdiction, as hereinafter shown, is distinct from and independent of the power conferred upon the judge by section 69 of said act to issue warrants of seizure against the bankrupt’s property. By a rule of this court promulgated May 19, 1900, referees are vested with all the powers which it is possible for them to exercise under the bankrupt act. What is the potential jurisdiction of referees under said act? Section 88, subd. 4, provides that:

Does the act, in any of its other provisions, qualify the power of a referee to appoint receivers? It is insisted that it does, and that such a qualification is implied in subdivision 3 of section 38, which provides that referees shall—

This last subdivision, however, refers in terms to the powers of the judge, and therefore does not restrict subdivision 4, already quoted, but is obviously and simply the correlative of section 69a, which is as follows:

In this connection, see Coll. Bankr. (3d Ed.) 266, 267; Loveland, Bankr. pp. 96, 287, note 3; In re Carter, 1 Nat. Bankr. N. 162.

If there was nothing in the pending motion other than the questions to which I have adverted, I should have no difficulty in holding that the appointment of the receiver in the case at bar was clearly within the jurisdiction of the referee; but there is another controlling matter, which seems to have escaped , the attention of counsel on both sides, namely, paragraph 12 of the general orders in bankruptcy ( 32 C. C. A. xvi ., 89 Fed. vii .) which, concerning the order of reference, provides that:

Thus it will be seen that the authority of the referee dates from the time the order of reference is placed in his hands, not from the time of its signing or filing. The phraseology “forthwith be sent by mail,to the referee” includes delivery as well as mailing, so that, wlie (her the copy of the order of reference be sent by mail or delivered personally, the jurisdiction of the referee attaches only from the time of its receipt by him. The necessity for General Order No. 12 ( 32 C. C. A. xvi ., 89 Fed. vii .) becomes manifest when we consider that a case may be referred generally to the 'referee, or specially, with only limited authority. Bankr. Act, § 22. How can the referee know the extent of his authority until the order of reference is before him? The receiver in the case at bar was appointed before the order of reference was delivered to the referee, and therefore the latter’s jurisdiction had not attached. For this reason said appointment is vacated and set aside. As the case has been referred generally, I will not act upon either of the applications for a receiver, but the referee will dispose of them, and otherwise proceed in the case under the order of reference already made.