In re George Halbert Co.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1904 |
| Citation | 134 F. 236 |
| Parties | In re GEORGE HALBERT CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Charles T. Ferry, for petitioners.
F. W. Park, for respondents.
This cause comes here upon petition to review an order of the District Court affirming a ruling of the referee in bankruptcy to the effect that the trustee, who happens to be an attorney and counselor at law, is entitled to extra compensation for legal services rendered to the estate.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
In support of the order sought to be reviewed, reference is made to two decisions: In re Mitchell, 1 Am.Bankr.Rep. 687, and In re Welge (D.C.) 1 Fed. 216. Both of these were under the bankruptcy act of March 2, 1867, c. 176, 14 Stat. 517, which provides that: 'In addition to all expenses necessarily incurred by him in the execution of his trust in any case, the assignee shall be entitled to an allowance for his services in such case on all moneys received and paid out by him thus: (Giving various percentages.) ' It must be assumed that Congress was advised of the fact that, under the language above cited, there had been occasions when trustees in bankruptcy who happened to be lawyers were allowed compensation for legal services in addition to their commissions, contrary to the almost universal practice, which refuses such allowances in the case of executors or of trustees generally. Presumably, it was to provide against such allowances being made under the bankrupt act of July 1, 1898, that Congress, in section 48 of such act (chapter 541, 30 Stat. 557 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3439)), provided as follows: 'Trustees shall receive as full compensation for their services, payable after they are rendered (the various percentages therein stated). ' This language is so precise, so unambiguous, and so explicit as to preclude the allowance of additional compensation upon any theory of a dual personality.
The order of the District Court is reversed, and the claim for extra services is disallowed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nisonoff v. Irving Trust Co.
...allowed by the Bankruptcy Act (section 72 11 USCA § 112). The terms of the act are explicit and are strictly enforced. In re George Halbert Co., 134 F. 236 (C. C. A. 2); In re Detroit Mortgage Corp., 12 F. (2d) 889 (C. C. A. 6); In re Sol Gross & Co., 274 F. 741 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.). Beyond ......
-
Folda v. Zilmer
...that the Bankruptcy Act prescribes the fees of the referee for the performance of all such duties, and that, as said in Re Halbert, 134 F. 236, 67 C. C. A. 18, the language of section 72 "is so precise, so unambiguous, and so explicit as to preclude the allowance of additional compensation ......
-
United States v. Ward
... ... in full compensation for all services performed by them ... under the act, or under these general orders. ' In ... re Halbert, 134 F. 236, 67 C.C.A. 18; In re ... Langford (D.C.) 225 F. 311, 314, 315; Dressel et ... al. v. North State Lumber Co. (D.C.) 119 F. 531 ... ...
-
United States v. Smelser
...Bankruptcy officers are denied excess compensation in any form. Section 72, Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 112. See, also, In re George Halbert Co. (C.C. A.) 134 F. 236. Likewise it is beyond dispute or debate that the officer who receives compensation by fees from the litigant should be scr......