In re Christianson

• Decision Date: 04 January 1910
• Citation: 175 F. 867
• Parties: In re CHRISTIANSON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

175 F. 867

In re CHRISTIANSON.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota.

January 4, 1910

C. E Pierson, for bankrupt.

Le Sueur & Bradford, for trustee.

AMIDON District Judge.

This cause comes before the court upon a petition to review the order of John H. Lewis, referee, bearing date on the 29th day of October, 1909. The order arose out of the following facts:

The bankrupt, at the time of filing his petition, paid to Mr. C E. Pierson, an attorney at law, $150 as attorney's fees for services to be rendered the bankrupt in this proceeding. The fact of the payment was disclosed in the examination of the bankrupt at the first meeting of creditors. Thereafter the trustee filed a petition for an order upon Mr. Pierson to show cause why he should not be required to return the whole or a part of the sum so paid to him. Mr. Pierson made return to such an order, and an examination was had before the referee. Both at the hearing and in his order the referee held that the attorney could only be allowed to retain a reasonable compensation for such services as were 'of benefit to the estate'; that no compensation could be allowed for services rendered to the bankrupt to enable him to secure the benefit of the bankrupt law. I think this was a misapprehension of the authorities, and of the provisions of the bankrupt law on the subject of attorney's fees. The rule cited by the referee is the rule applicable to the compensation of attorneys acting on behalf of one or more creditors prior to the election of a trustee. When an attorney so acting performs services in the protection of the estate and the rights of creditors, which are beneficial to the estate, a reasonable compensation may be allowed to him. This compensation is confined to services that are beneficial to the estate. Such, however, is not the rule in regard to the compensation of an attorney who acts on behalf of a bankrupt. The rule in that case is accurately stated by Judge Brown in the case of In re Cross (D.C.) 96 F. 816 819, as follows:

'I have already stated the general nature of the services which I think are designed to be covered by the allowance. In voluntary cases, they are such as are indispensable to enable the bankrupt properly to bring his case into bankruptcy surrender his estate, and perform his duties for the benefit of creditors on the one hand, and to receive his discharge, if entitled to it, on the other. * * * They include the preparation of the necessary legal papers, procuring the adjudication and reference, bringing the debtor before the referee for such subsequent proceedings as may be required, making in due time the application for discharge, attendance before the judge and referee as may be needful, and throughout the proceedings keeping himself informed of their progress, and giving such attention to the essential steps in the bankrupt's behalf as will secure to him a regular and valid discharge. These are the ordinary attorney's duties.'

This case is cited with approval by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit in the case of In re Habegger, 139 F. 623, 71 C.C.A. 607. An examination of the statement of facts in that case will show that the rule above declared was enforced by both the trial court and by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The bankruptcy act contemplates that the bankrupt will turn over to the trustee all his property, except his exemptions. Those exemptions are allowed by the...