In re Bignall

• Decision Date: 09 November 1881
• Citation: 9 F. 385
• Parties: In re BIGNALL, Bankrupt.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

9 F. 385

In re BIGNALL, Bankrupt.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri.

November 9, 1881

George M. Stewart, for petitioners.

J. M. &amp C. H. Krum, for excepting creditors.

The question here arose upon two petitions of the firm of Taylor & Pollard, attorneys at law, asking for the allowance of certain fees, and the report of the register in bankruptcy to whom the matter was referred. The register decided that said firm was entitled to a fee of $750 for services as attorneys, on behalf of the petitioning creditors, in obtaining the adjudication of M. C. Bignall as a bankrupt and to 20 per cent. of the amounts recovered in the suits referred to in the opinion of the court, and so reported. The register's report was excepted to by the Gould Manufacturing Company and S. B. Gould, creditors, who had sought to obtain a fraudulent preference by buying up claims against the bankrupt's estate.

TREAT D.J.

I have considered the exceptions to the register's report in this case, and as the attorneys were anxious to have the matter determined before 3 o'clock to-day, I shall announce my conclusions. The attorneys for the petitioning creditors asked for an allowance in the matter, for their services, of the sum of $1,000. The register, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the attorneys what he considered a reasonable sum, namely, the sum of $750. It is said, from the facts appearing with regard to the matter, that but for the proceedings in bankruptcy the creditors would have practically received nothing. The supreme court of the United States, under the general orders in bankruptcy, especially Nos. 3 and 39, tried to restrict these matters, so far as a petitioning creditor was concerned, to the ordinary taxable costs in the courts, as stated in the general order, as 'in cases of equity.' The practice of the district courts had been otherwise. They held that where some creditors proceeded against an estate, and spent money for the benefit of the creditors generally, the general fund ought to be amenable for the result, inasmuch as all the creditors would share in the benefits of the controversy. But the supreme court of the United States, under the act of 1875, concluded to stop that. The exceptions as to that allowance by the register will, therefore, be sustained, except as to the sum of $20, which is the taxable fee.

Now, as to the other matter, what is properly allowable? It seems that the assignee in this case-- the original assignee and his successor, the original assignee having resigned-- made an agreement with the attorneys in this matter whereby they might...