Hibbs v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 16 December 1924 |
| Citation | 266 S.W. 1075,206 Ky. 198 |
| Parties | HIBBS ET AL. v. PERKINS ET AL. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County.
C. C Grassham, of Paducah, Chas. Ferguson, of Smithland, and L. B Alexander, of Paducah, for appellants.
C. H Wilson and J. M. Montgomery, both of Smithland, for appellees.
The firm of Hibbs & Bussey held certain leases on real property and were engaged as partners in farming and handling live stock. In December, 1920, a suit was filed by Hibbs, seeking a settlement of the partnership business on the ground of insolvency. On the 5th of January, 1921, H. D. Perkins was appointed and qualified as receiver thereof, and took charge of the partnership effects. These consisted of leases on real estate, some live stock, corn on hand, and a small amount due the firm from others. Perkins applied himself vigorously to the work, looking after the stock and other property. It seems that he disposed of this to good advantage, some being sold at public auction, and some at private sale, and that he accompanied some of the stock to St. Louis, where it was sold on that market.
On the 11th of April, 1921, he filed a report in the circuit court, showing the total assets of the estate received by him to have been $28,229. Of this the sum of $11,400 was realized from the sale of real estate leases, and was accepted by the lien creditors in specie without being collected. Of the remainder, $8,205 was received in cash, the other consisting of matters due the firm and notes on sales made by the receiver. At that time the special work of the receiver had been practically completed. There was some corn yet to deliver and a few contested claims owing to the estate, but these were matters of no great consequence.
An order was entered on April 12, 1921, allowing the sum of "$335 for services, under section 1740, as shown by said receivers' affidavit filed herein, and the further sum of $1,000 for special services as said receiver." There was also allowed $1,000 to the attorney who filed a suit for settlement. No exceptions were taken to those allowances, but at the ensuing September term a motion was made to file exceptions thereto. The court refused this, and an exception was taken to its ruling.
On April 11, 1923, the plaintiff in the suit offered to file a motion for a retaxation of costs, and for a reconsideration of the item of $1,000 allowed as special compensation to the receiver. The court refused to consider this, for the reason that such allowance was a final order made at a previous term by a different judge. An exception was taken, and an appeal granted from that ruling.
At the same term of court the receiver asked for two additional allowances, under section 1740, Ky. Statutes, one for $378, and the other for $789. He also asked an allowance for an additional attorney's fee of $250. The basis of the claim for the attorney's fee was to pay his counsel for representing him on that motion for an additional allowance. The court refused to allow any attorney's fee; it also refused to allow the receiver's claims as made, but did allow him $500 in lieu thereof. An exception was taken to this allowance, and the plaintiff in the original action appeals.
In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flinn v. Blakeman
...... readers attention to it. . . A. similar ruling was made and this Stockholders' Case was. cited in Hibbs et al. v. Perkins et al., 206 Ky. 198, 266 S.W. 1075. It is the general rule that, where the. court has jurisdiction, the act of the court in ......
-
Flinn v. Blakeman
...opinion, we invite the readers attention to it. A similar ruling was made and this Stockholders' Case was cited in Hibbs et al. v. Perkins et al., 206 Ky. 198, 266 S.W. 1075. It is the general rule that, where the court has jurisdiction, the act of the court in entering a judgment premature......
-
Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones
...grew is one over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Village Mills Co., 109 Tex. 169, 202 S.W. 725 (266 S.W. 1075); Spence v. Fenchler, 107 Tex. 443, 449, 180 S.W. 597; 24 Tex.Jur. 286, § 230.' This Court clearly has jurisdiction of the main cases out of wh......
-
Roberts v. Fiscal Court of McLean County
...an additional allowance may be made, Fidelity Oil Corporation v. Southern Oil & Pipe Line Co., 197 Ky. 676, 247 S.W. 950; Hibbs v. Perkins, 206 Ky. 198, 266 S.W. 1075; cannot now be determined. The statute provides that no allowance in any case shall be made to a commissioner or receiver un......