Rhodes v. Kurtz ( 1936 )

PER CURIAM.

This case turns on the question whether the petitioner was a farmer and, as such, entitled to the benefit of the federal- statute here involved (Bankr.Act, § 75, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203). The court below and the referee both found he was not a farmer. Finding ourselves in entire accord with this holding, the order of the court below is affirmed.