The error alleged in this case is the order appointing a special referee under the provisions of section 21a of the Bankruptcy Act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. 552, c. 541 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3430]), before the adjudication of the bankrupt. The case is clearly within the decision of Skubinsky v. Bodek, 172 Fed. 332, 97 C. C. A. 116, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 985, 19 Ann. Cas. 1035, decided by this court. The order of the District Court must therefore be reversed.

(dissenting). I am constrained to record my dissent in this case, and as my grounds therefor to refer to the dissenting opinion in Skubinsky v. Bodek, 172 Fed. 332, 97 C. C. A. 116, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 985, 19 Ann. Cas. 1035. This dissent I renew, with the hope that Congress may eventually remedy the weak place ia the bankruptcy law, *1022which, under the construction given that law by the decision in the Stubinsky Case, now exists.