Buford v. TOBACCO GROWERS'CO-OP. ASS'N, 3021.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 3021.,3021. |
| Citation | 42 F.2d 791 |
| Parties | BUFORD et al. v. TOBACCO GROWERS' CO-OP. ASS'N et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
J. Crawford Biggs, of Raleigh, N. C. (Biggs & Broughton, of Raleigh, N. C., on the brief), for appellants.
H. S. Ward, of Washington, N. C., and W. T. Joyner, of Raleigh, N. C. (M. L. Corey, of Richmond, Va., and J. H. Pou, of Raleigh, N. C., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and ERNEST F. COCHRAN, District Judge.
This is an appeal by counsel from an order of the District Judge refusing an allowance of counsel fees. Counsel represented certain members of the Tobacco Growers' Co-operative Association, and in the behalf of the latter asked that receivers be appointed for the association on the grounds of mismanagement and imminent insolvency. Receivers were appointed on their petition, and under the receivership the debts of the association have been paid and a fund of approximately $500,000 has been realized for distribution among the members. Petitioning counsel were appointed attorneys for the receivers, and allowances of $5,000 each have been made to them for services rendered as such. They have filed this petition, however, for an allowance for services rendered in bringing and prosecuting the suit in which the receivers were appointed, and ask the allowance on the ground that through their services a fund has been realized or preserved for the benefit of all of the members of the association, and that they should be compensated from the fund for such services. The learned District Judge has denied their petition in the exercise of his discretion without, however, finding the facts upon which this exercise of discretion is based; and we cannot tell from the record before us whether he thought that petitioners were not entitled to fees for bringing and prosecuting the suit because same was opposed by other members of the association, or that the services of petitioners did not result in benefit to members other than their clients, or that the allowance as counsel for the receivers, being paid out of the same fund, was intended to be in full compensation of all services rendered in connection with the suit.
There can be no doubt that in a case where counsel for complainants, who sue as representatives of a class, succeed in recovering or preserving a fund which is brought into the custody of the court and inures to the benefit of the class, such counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Weede v. Bechtel
...These were all mere formalities.'); Washington Gas, Light Co. v. Baker, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 195 F.2d 29; Buford v. Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 4 Cir., 42 F.2d 791, 792, (Attorney fees allowed for procuring appointment of a receiver for mismanaged association, to the benefit of the associ......
-
Mitchell v. Whitman, 10799.
...certiorari denied 248 U.S. 558, 39 S.Ct. 6, 63 L.Ed. 420; Haehnlen v. Drayton, 192 F. 300, 306. Fourth Circuit: — Buford v. Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 42 F.2d 791, 792; Carbon Steel Co. v. Slayback, 31 F.2d 702, 705; Burroughs v. Toxaway Co., 185 F. 435, 440. Fifth Circuit: — Straus v. ......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. O'Malley
...performed. The People v. Straus, 355 Ill. 642; Haynie, Parks & Westfall v. Camden Gas Corp., 56 S.W.2d 418, 186 Ark. 842; Buford v. Cooperative Assn., 42 F.2d 791; of Portland v. Paper Co., 71 P. 972; Ferguson v. Dent, 46 F. 88; Wallace v. Fiske, 107 A. L. R. 748, 80 F.2d 897; Johnson v. Un......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Fitch
......64;. Wallace v. Fiske, 80 F.2d 897; Buford v. Tobacco. Growers' Co-op. Assn., 42 F.2d 791; Nolte v. ......