Chavelle

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Under repeated rulings, the trust company was justified in resorting to both appeal and petition to bring up for review the rulings of which it complains, in order to avoid a mistake in its remedy. In re Worcester County, 102 Fed. 808 , 42 C. C. A. 637 ; Lockman v. Lang, 132 Fed. 1 , 65 C. C. A. 621 ; Fisher v. Cushman, 103 Fed. 860 , 43 C. C. A. 381 , 51 L. R. A. 292; Collier on Bankruptcy (8th Ed.) 434-436. The motion to dismiss is denied.

The findings of fact and evidence show, among other things, that the $23,300, par value, of the bonds issued to McPhaden, were issued *406 to him by the Steel & Bolt Company in payment of money he had theretofore advanced to the company, and that McPhaden was then a stockholder, director, and the president of the company; and that the $2,900, par value, of the bonds issued by the Steel & Bolt Company to Pike were issued to him by the Steel & Bolt Company in payment of money he had theretofore advanced to the company; and that Pike was then a stockholder, director, and the secretary and treasurer of the company.

It is true that.the deed of trust declared that none of the bonds should be sold or disposed…