Fletcher v. Hahn

• Decision Date: 25 May 1894
• Citation: 59 N.W. 315,57 Minn. 361
• Parties: FLETCHER v. HAHN ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 361

59 N.W. 315

FLETCHER

v.HAHN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 25, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where two judges of the district court in Hennepin county sit together in the hearing of a cause, if there is a division of opinion, the opinion of the judge senior in office is the opinion of the court.

2. Where an assignee in insolvency has failed to comply with the order of the court to turn over all money and property in his hands to his successor, it is not error for the court to refuse to pass upon and allow his account for services and disbursements until he complies with the order.

3. In passing upon the account of the assignee, the court is not confined to the evidence formally introduced on the hearing, but, in determining the reasonableness of the account, may use his own personal knowledge of what has been done by the assignee in the proceedings, and of the general nature and extent of his services.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Charles M. Pond, Judge.

Appeal of George H. Fletcher, former assignee of the State Bank, from an order settling his accounts. Affirmed.

J. F. McGee, for appellant.

Hahn & Hawley and J. W. Arctander, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

The short facts are that on June 27th the State Bank of Minneapolis, being insolvent, made an assignment for the benefit of its creditors to one Fletcher, a stockholder and director of the bank, and a debtor to it in the sum of over $5,000, of which $1,500 was overdue. Fletcher entered upon the duties of his office, as assignee, June 30th. On August 12th he resigned, and on August 17th the court made an order appointing his successor, and requiring him to deliver over to such successor all property or money of the bank in his hands. At this time, Fletcher had in his hands $8,643.14, of which over $6,200 was practically money which the bank had on hand at the time of the assignment. The remainder was money which Fletcher had collected by his own exertions. On August 22d, Fletcher paid over to his successor $5,000, and no more. On or about August 24th, he filed his report, in which he claimed for his services and disbursements, during the month and a half he had acted as assignee, the sum of $3,431.38. A large number of the creditors of the bank objected to the allowance of any part of the account, for the reason, among others, that he was in contempt of court, in not obeying its order to pay over to his successor all the money in his hands. They also objected to numerous items of the account, either as unreasonable in amount, or as not being proper disbursements. Judge Hicks, who held the special term, designated Judge Pond as the judge to hear the matter. Judge Pond refused to hear it unless Judge Hicks would sit with him. The two judges sat together on the hearing; Judge Hicks, the senior in office, presiding, and rendering the decision, and making the order of the court. Judge Pond filed a memorandum opinion dissenting from some of the views of Judge Hicks, but made no order. The order filed by Judge Hicks required Fletcher to pay over to his successor the full balance of $3,643.14 remaining in...