, In re Thomas, supra; In re Lenrick Sales, Inc., 369 F.2d 439, 442 (3d Cir. 1967), certiorari denied sub nom. Cohen v. James Talcott, Inc., 389 U.S. 822, 88 S. Ct. 45, 19 L.Ed.2d 74; In re Zuky, 18 F.2d 284 (E.D.N.Y. 1926); 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 44.01 (14th ed. 1968); 2 Remington on Bankruptcy, § 1094 (rev. ed. 1956).

Instead, he enunciated a general principle that an assignee for the benefit of creditors whose accounts are unsettled is disqualified, ipso facto, from acting as trustee. The scanty authorities on the point are divided. Compare Garrison v. Pilliod Cabinet Co., 50 F.2d 1035 (10th Cir. 1931), In re Kellar, 192 F. 830, 833 (1st Cir. 1912) (presumptively disqualified), and In re Zuky, 18 F.2d 284 (E.D.N.Y. 1926), with In re Kutcher, 69 F.2d 104 (2d Cir. 1934) (dictum) (per curiam), In re Katz Williams, Inc., 48 F. Supp. 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1941) (by implication), and In re Blue Ridge Packing Co., 125 F. 619 (M.D.Pa. 1903). Since none of these decisions is particularly persuasive or authoritative, we re-examine the question in the light of the policy justification advanced by the referee, the possibility of a conflict of interest.