Atkinson & Co., Inc. v. Aldrich-Clisbee Co.
Decision Date | 09 August 1915 |
Docket Number | 510. |
Citation | 248 F. 134 |
Parties | ATKINSON & CO., Inc., v. ALDRICH-CLISBEE CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Stone & Stone, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Henry B. Roberts, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
As to the rent:
This was never fixed by order of the court, not by any formal and approved action of the receivers. The amount now charged against them by the landlord, $30 per day, was originally put to the Aldrich-Clisbee Company as a means of forcing it to vacate. It is plainly more than a fair rental value of the premises. It does not appear that there has been any marked increase in such value since the termination of the lease in September, 1913. At that time, the landlord charged $20 per day. This seems to me the best basis for fixing the amount of rent. I see no reason why the receivers should pay more. The claim of the landlord for rent is to be reduced to $20 per day for the time which the receivers occupied, viz. 294 days and the receivership is to be credited with the payments of $210, and $4,120, leaving a balance due of $1,550.
As to the damage to the building:
It is not claimed that this was all done during the receivership. It is said in the brief for the landlord that "a part of the damages for which the very moderate claim is made were done while the premises were in the control of the respondent corporation or its receivers," and again that "the landlord cannot state at what precise time any particular part of the damage was done in the bakeshop." As the only portion of this charge properly payable by the receivers would be the damage done during the receivership, and as that amount cannot be separated, the whole item must be disallowed, as against the receivers.
As to the compensation of the receivers:
The receivers operated the business from January 20, 1914, to November 4, 1914, and incurred during that period bills for materials, rent, insurance, supplies, etc., incident to such operation. None of these bills was specially authorized by order of court; they were contracted under the general authority to continue the business. As I understand the facts, the total amount available for distribution, as of November 4th, is $10,756.99. The bills against the receivers as above modified, and without their own claim for services amount to slightly more than $5,000, and that it should be made a preferred claim against the funds in their hands. It is apparent that whatever sum is allowed to them must be paid at the expense, not of creditors of the Aldrich-Clisbee Company, but of creditors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Culhane v. Anderson
...Atlantic States Life Ins. Co. D. C. 223 F. 463), and such allowances to the counsel for defendant are rarely proper (Atkinson & Co. v. Aldrich-Clisbee Co. D. C. 248 F. 134; Barker v. Southern B. & L. Association C. C. 181 F. The first matter to be noted is that neither this lien, nor the cl......
-
Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. Marsch
...E. 184; Gehr v. Iron Co., 174 Pa. 430, 34 A. 638; Kelley v. Collins & G. R. Co., 154 Ga. 698, 115 S. E. 67 (semble); Atkinson & Co. v. Aldrich Clisbee Co. (D. C.) 248 F. 134." And continuing the court "It is true that in that case Robertson v. Goree (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 261 the occupation h......
-
MacGregor v. Johnson-Cowdin-Emmerich, Inc.
...E. 184; Gehr v. Iron Co., 174 Pa. 430, 34 A. 638; Kelley v. Collins & G. R. Co., 154 Ga. 698, 115 S. E. 67 (semble); Atkinson & Co. v. Aldrich-Clisbee Co. (D. C.) 248 F. 134. The cases are not so uniform as regards franchise taxes, but we may disregard them here. The amendment of section 64......
-
Hammond v. Carthage Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co.
...he may ultimately have to pay receivership charges. Union Trust Co. v. Great Eastern Co., 248 F. 46, 160 C. C. A. 186; Atkinson v. Aldrich, etc., Co. (D. C.) 248 F. 134. 3. The claim in suit and against Northern New York Coal Company. As found below, this demand for damages for breach of co......