Maxwell v. Wilmington Dental Manuf'g Co., 145.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
Citation82 F. 214
Docket Number145.
PartiesMAXWELL v. WILMINGTON DENTAL MANUF'G CO.
Decision Date21 July 1897

82 F. 214

MAXWELL
v.
WILMINGTON DENTAL MANUF'G CO.

No. 145.

United States Circuit Court, D. Delaware.

July 21, 1897


J. H. Hoffecker, R. D. Maxwell, and A. H. Wintersteen, for receiver.

H. H. Ward and Andrew C. Gray, for creditors.

Benjamin Nields, for bondholders.

William S. Hilles, for stockholders. [82 F. 215]

BRADFORD, District Judge.

In this case The Girard Life Insurance, Annuity & Trust Company of Philadelphia has by petition applied for an allowance to it of compensation for its services as receiver of The Wilmington Dental Manufacturing Company, and also for the services of counsel employed by it as such receiver. Counsel for the receiver have made to the court alternative suggestions touching the amount which should now be allowed to the receiver for its own compensation, as follows: First, that such compensation be fixed at the sum of $30,000, to cover all past and future services of the receiver; or, secondly, that, should the court deem it improper at this time to fix the total compensation of the receiver, the sum of $15,000 be allowed for or on account of its services heretofore rendered.

The first suggestion is clearly inadmissible. Assets of the dental company to a large amount, consisting of both real and personal property, will in all probability have to be converted into cash, and properly applied and distributed, before the termination of the receivership, and it is impossible at this stage of the proceedings to foresee with any degree of accuracy what questions or complications may arise in the case before it reaches its conclusion. Future contingencies and exigencies, and the character of the future administration of the receivership, cannot be determined now, yet, when realized, necessarily must enter into and largely control any fair and equitable adjustment of compensation. The proper time for the final allowance of compensation for the receiver obviously is at the close of the receivership. Unless the receivership be practically at an end, any such final allowance is premature. Under the receivership be practically at an end, any such final allowance is premature. Under the circumstances of this case the court cannot, with any propriety, now fix the total compensation of the receiver for past and future services.

The alternative suggestion of an allowance to the receiver of $15,000 for or on account of services heretofore rendered has received very careful consideration by the court. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...and until that time full compensation will not be made, and the allowance will not be made without proof. (Maxwell v. Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214; In re Pelican Saw Mill Co., 19 So. 686.) In view of the evidence as to the understanding of the parties at the time of Horton's appointment, the allowan......
  • Kilpatrick v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 7, 1907
    ...It was improper to allow compensation for the entire services of the receiver before the close of the receivership. (Maxwell v. Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214.) The allowance was made improperly without evidence or the presence of necessary parties or any intelligent investigation. This court should r......
  • Bergeron v. Sessions, No. 19358
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • December 30, 1977
    ...and discharge of the receiver, only a partial advance toward a final fee can properly be made. Maxwell v. Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214 (Cir.Ct.Del.1897); See Merchant's Bank of St. Joseph v. Crysler, 67 F. 388, 391 (8th Cir. Several policy considerations support this rule. First, t......
  • Adams v. Fraser, 742.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 2, 1897
    ...his power. He was an agent to sell, and when he had brought the vendor and the vendee into a binding agreement of sale, his duty was [82 F. 214.] performed, and his authority was at an end. The agreement of May 18, 1886, was a complete and enforceable contract. After that agreement was conc......
4 cases
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 9, 1908
    ...and until that time full compensation will not be made, and the allowance will not be made without proof. (Maxwell v. Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214; In re Pelican Saw Mill Co., 19 So. 686.) In view of the evidence as to the understanding of the parties at the time of Horton's appointment, the allowan......
  • Kilpatrick v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 7, 1907
    ...It was improper to allow compensation for the entire services of the receiver before the close of the receivership. (Maxwell v. Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214.) The allowance was made improperly without evidence or the presence of necessary parties or any intelligent investigation. This court should r......
  • Bergeron v. Sessions, No. 19358
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • December 30, 1977
    ...and discharge of the receiver, only a partial advance toward a final fee can properly be made. Maxwell v. Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co., 82 F. 214 (Cir.Ct.Del.1897); See Merchant's Bank of St. Joseph v. Crysler, 67 F. 388, 391 (8th Cir. Several policy considerations support this rule. First, t......
  • Adams v. Fraser, 742.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 2, 1897
    ...his power. He was an agent to sell, and when he had brought the vendor and the vendee into a binding agreement of sale, his duty was [82 F. 214.] performed, and his authority was at an end. The agreement of May 18, 1886, was a complete and enforceable contract. After that agreement was conc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT