¶1I agree in all respects with the opinion of Judge Wallace in this case. The authority to apply for a discharge rests entirely upon section 29. It must necessarily be taken with the limitations in that section contained. The only right to apply, there giyen, is to be exercised within one •year from the time of the adjudication. In my judgment, this applies to all cases, whether there are debts proved, or assets received, or not. It is a case of limited authority, and there is no power to grant a discharge unless it is applied for within the time prescribed. The excuse of the bankrupt for the delay is a reasonable one, and, if there was power, I should accept it as satisfactory.
¶2If it be assumed that the distinction made by Judge Nelson, that the limitation of one year applies only to cases where there are no assets, or no debts are proved, is a sound one, the result here must be the same. No assets in this case have come to the hands of the assignee.
¶3Holding the limitation to be imperative, and not subject to the discretion of the court, there is no power to grant the discharge. In my view of the law, the district judge was compelled to deny the application for a discharge, and his order to that effect is .itSrmed.