IN BB MOTT. 689 �ficient, especially as against a petition which does not aver that the sale was not adjourned. �It is also objected that the sale -was void because the assignee sold the interests of both estates together, whereas the order required him to sell eacb separately. I think a proper con- struction of the order is that the assignee might put up both interests for sale together. The order was in both matters. The interest to be sold, as set forth in the description to be inserted in the advertisement, was the right, title, and interest of "each and either" of said estates. If, possibly, the sale of both interests together was liable to cause embarrassment in apportioning the proceeds between the two estates, that is a matter in which these petitioners have no interest, and it would be rather late to give any weight to that consideration now. I see no such serions embarrassment in such a sale as to make it necessary to hold it void on account of any impos- sibility of apportionment, and I think the assignee did not violate the terms of the order in seUing in this way. What- ever interests Jordan Mott and Jacob H. Mott had at the time of their bankruptcy in the lands under the will of John Hop- per, if any, which passed to their assignee, the interest was an undivided interest of very unoertain nature. There was no impropriety in ordering them to be sold, and in selling them together, and this mode of selling was more likely, as it seems to me, to attract purchasers. �It is also objected to the order that it was the order of the judge, and signed by him, and not an order of the court, entered in its minutes ; but this suggestion is not sustained by the record, which shows that the order was entered at length on the minutes of the court. Its being signed by the judge does not make it any the less an order of the court. Nor is there practically any distiction in this court, as a court of bankruptcy, between an order of the judge and an order of the court, because, under the statute, the court in bankruptcy is always open, and whenever the judge aets, wherever he may be, the act is the act of the court. �It is also objected that the sale was not advertised for 14 days, nor at ail, the 14 days' advertisement being for the �v.6,no.7— 44 ��� �
