12 F.2d 205 (6th Cir. 1926), 4545,4546, In re Stillwell

Docket Nº:4545, 4546.
Citation:12 F.2d 205
Party Name:In re STILLWELL et al. In re ASHBAUGH.
Case Date:April 09, 1926
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 205

12 F.2d 205 (6th Cir. 1926)

In re STILLWELL et al.

In re ASHBAUGH.

Nos. 4545, 4546.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 9, 1926

Franklin Rubrecht, of Columbus, Ohio, for petitioners.

Samuel L. Black, of Columbus, Ohio, for respondents.

In Case No. 4546:

Franklin Rubrecht, of Columbus, Ohio, for petitioner.

Samuel L. Black and D. B. Ulrey, both of Columbus, Ohio, J. W. Barry, of Mt.

Page 206

Gilead, Ohio, and Henry Gumble, of Columbus, Ohio, for respondent.

Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and KNAPPEN, Circuit Judges.

MOORMAN, Circuit Judge.

In September of 1921 the Knox Tire & Rubber Company was adjudged a bankrupt and Paul M. Ashbaugh appointed trustee. The estate was a substantial one. Robert M. Greer, the referee in bankruptcy, was appointed special master, and L. C. Stillwell and F. O. Levering were employed as attorneys for the trustee. After more than two years, during which the estate was in process of administration, Greer was removed from office by the judge, and Ashbaugh resigned, after filing what purported to be a statement of his accounts, which was referred to Frederick N. Sinks, referee, to take proof on exceptions filed thereto by various stockholders and report to the court. Petitions to review certain findings of the referee, not necessary to set out here, were brought to the District Judge, who, among other rulings, entered an order on his own motion reducing the fee allowed Stillwell and Levering (Ashbaugh had paid them, with Greer's approval, $20,000) from $15,000 to $5,000. The case is here on petitions to revise the orders of the court reducing this fee and disallowing other credits claimed by the trustee, approximating $22,000.

The record does not contain findings of fact touching the questions to be reviewed, unless the judgment on the exceptions, wherein the court's views of the facts are expressed, be so considered. We accept them as findings, but we are without authority to decide disputed questions of fact or to do more than review the questions of law, considering in connection therewith whether there is evidence to support them. In re Stewart (6 C.C.A.) 179 F. 222, 102 C.C.A. 348; Powder Co. v. Sternbergh, 218 U.S. 299, 31 S.Ct. 25, 54 L.Ed. 1047. Exceptions were sustained to specific credits claimed by Ashbaugh, excluding the attorney's fee, as follows: Commissions and fees...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP