Titlow

(after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. The case comes here upon appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court under section 24a of the Bankruptcy Act, and also upon a petition to review such order under 'section 24b of the same act, because of a doubt as to the correct procedure for obtaining a review of the order in controversy. Both methods of procedure may be resorted to in order to avoid a mistake in the remedy. Chavelle v. Washington Trust Co., 226 Fed. 400, 405 , 141 C. C. A. 230 .

[ 2 ] But when the case is here upon both methods of procedure, this court must determine which of the two the court is authorized to entertain, since each is exclusive of the other (Bothwell v. Fitzgerald, 219 Fed. 408, 413 , 135 C. C. A. 212 ; Pindel v. Holgate, 221 Fed. 342, 346 , 137 C. C. A. 158 , Ann. Cas. 1916C, 983), and the scope of the review is not the same.

[3] The matter in controversy is a claim which the bankruptcy court allowed as a preferred claim. The objection to the claim is that it is not a preferred claim under the statute. The controversy comes, therefore, under clause 3, § 25a, of the bankruptcy act, which provides for an appeal “as in equity” from “a judgment allowing…