The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-04
app6intnient of the second to dlsplaoe

appoint of the second to displace l the first.
 Act of Year 1898.
 Applying the rule announced In Red Rock vs. Henry. supra, we held
 that the latter act does not repeal the former.
 2. It Is contended by the learned
 quires the concurrent action of both
 judges to exercise the administrative
 power of appointment of a referee to hold office for a stated period; and
 that the same concurrent action of
 the two judges is required to effect
 the removal of a referee. The solu-
 tion of the question raised by this con- tention depends on the construction
 and meaning of the bankruptcy act Of
 statute Is: Courts of bankruptcy
 shall appoint referees, each for term
 of two years and may, in their discre-
 tion. remove them because their ser
 cause" Bankruptcy Act, Section s4 a.
 Courts of bankruptcy include the dis-
 trict courts of the United States.
 Ibid, Section l. subdivision E. The
 Congress to vest in the courts the
 authority to appoint referees Con-
 stitution, Article 2, Section 9; Article
 1, Section 8. It must be kept in mind
 that Congress has not attempted to
 confer the power to appoint referees
 on the fudge or judges. but 1t is com
 ferred on the courts of bankruptcy:
 If the statute conferred the power or
 appointment on the two judges. diL-
 ferent question would be presence,
 A United States District court, which
 is, under the act, a court of bank
 ruptcy is a court held by one J@dge.
 There may be by statute. or by assign
 ment of a circuit judge. two district
 judges with authority to hold the dis
 trict court at the same time and in
 different places in the district deslg-
 mated by law. but at each place where
 the court is held 1t is a court held by
 one fudge No provision Is made for
 two district judges to sit together and
 hold the district court This is con
 ceded to be true, and is not question
 ed when the court sits In the dfscnarRe
 of It's ordinary Judicial duties as a
 district court or as a court of bank
 ruptcy. We find no word ip the
 statute indicating a different plan or court organization or mode of pre- cedure when the court of bankruptcy sits to appoint or remove referee.
 A district court or court of bank ruptcy may be held for all purposes by one lawful and authorized tudse' Where a court is composed Of num- Der of judges and the power Of ap- such court, the appointment may De made by the court when held by the number of judges required oy laW 70 hold the court. Warner Vs. Heople, e power of appointment or removal of an officer is conferred on a court which may be held by one judge, the power
 may be exercised by the court so held who is also authorized to hald the same court. This follows, We think from the fact that the power is con ferred on the court and not on the judge or judges. When 2 laWful dls- trict court convenes or sits, it can pro- ceed to make the appointment or the removal of a referee just as 1t pro- ceeds to make other orders
 We have carefully examined the the learned counsel. for the petitioner, and we do not, deem them controlling. Where authority Is conferred by stat ute on board of ,.9raga m9sEgsstrtases to slect treasurer; Smyth vs. Darley, Ii. L. Gas. 7Se: or on two overseers Of the poor to exercise jointly des1gnateS91 ffs. s4 Am. Dec, 22S; or on judges. or a majority of them, to fix. at meet Ing of the judges. special terms ef eSdGt Sio st. MeTsRani sSs and Yf in % similar cases different rule from the one we have announced would obtain The ,r stat. cte in each case must control; Those cases have no application to the case at bar, for, in them. authority con ferred On certain individuals or onl- cers collectively is considered. Here, the power ana 8uCSbAOh is conferred on the court, and the re- 0uirement of the statute is met when the court exercises the authority. nd rev,ss anG in amshf matters of law proceed conferred on this court by Section 24h of the bankruptcy act. The material Proceeding is an order removing the petitioner from the ofiice of referee. We have already quoted the statute which authorizes the court ot hanS IaS arees. By the express term of the act tho bankruptcy courts may. m their discretion, remove them because other cause.'N If the position of the 1 could be sustained, that the order removing him could not be legaiIIy o maSe 6etb "1!mTu inSses case might be presented authorizing the interter. ence of this court. Bus we have hela that position not well taken, aha or 'nat moval of a referee may be made oy the court of bankruptcy by one judge Our conclusion on that question IS Ia The right and power to remove Is in the court of bankruptcy, to pc e1er- cised at its discretion. We ma neI- ther in the statute nor nitv m cdnferred 5ne @e on this court to control the court of on the facts alleged ID the petition, in the eAeEclS6 o1 AtS discretion in making the order of re- moval. ..,-.,.-- by the Constitution. has vested the power to appoiint {. referees rel s,,s cy, and. when appointed. the referee holds the ofice at the. discretion of the court that appointed him. It fol lows, We think, that this court can have no control over the appointment or removal, nor can 1t make inquiry into the grounds of removal, rGaGv As cSss wss a similar question. If the judge is chargeabie wit with .Sd any y{r,s61s9 S61se to which he is amenable; and as we have no right to judge upon this E. maj H,. is required, we abstain from express ing any opinion upon that part Of the case In re Hennen, IS Peters SSO. 26O.
 "The petition to superintend and revise Is disallowed and dismissed
 A novelty in footwear that provides for the display of coquettish hosiery is found Tn the new black suede boots,