IN BS u'aONiaLB. 767 �In re McGoniglb, Bankrupt. �{Oireuit Court, W, D. Pennaylvania. June 3, 1880.) Baskrcptct— Amendsibîit of Rbtukii to Obdeb of Saijs. �In Bankruptcy. �Sm- petition of G. I. Davis for amendment of retum to order of sale, etc., and rule to show cause. �Wm. H. Semler, for amendment to deed. �Geo. M. Reade, for assignee. �AcHKsoN, D. J. The register to whom the case was referred after the original order of sale was made, to àscertain the liens upon the bankrupt' s real estate, recommended that the order to sell be amended so that the real estate designated in his report as purparts Nos. 1 and 2 "be sold subjcct to the Uen of the judgment of the Heirs of Adam Moyers v. Jeremiah McGonigle;" that the real estate designated as purparts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 be sold "subject to the paymentoi thelegacy of Michael A. McGonigle, when the different instalments fall due;" and that the "real estate of the bankrupt be sold dis- charged from ail other liens." �This report the court confirmed absolutely May 9, 1876. The order of sale was not formally amended, but the con- firmation of the register's report was equivalent to an amend- ment. �Why the register, in his recommendation, restricted the lien of the Moyer judgment to purparts Nos. 1 and 2, is not clear to me. It would seem to bave been an inadvertenee or clerical error. The original judgment had been revived, and manifestly at the time of the death of Jeremiah McGonigle, and at the date of the sale in this case, the four pieces of land designated as purparts Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were bound by the lien of the Moyers judgment. However, as G. I. Davis bought these four pieces, the mistake in the register's report is not material. �From a caref ul examination of the whole record the follow- ing propositions appear to me clear — First. That the court ����
