In Re Siegler

(after stating the facts as above).

Any difference of opinion respecting the force and effect of a turnover order,'which may have prevailed before the decision of the Supreme Court, in Prela v. Hubshman, 49 S. Ct. 173, 73 L. Ed. — , is no<w out of place in any discussion of the subject. The amount to be paid is conclusively fixed by the order, and no evidence can properly be considered on a motion for commitment for contempt, except that which tends to show inability on the part of the bankrupt to comply with the order because of something which has taken place since the order was made.

The…