Middleton v Bankers' & Merchants Tel. Co.

Citation32 F. 524
PartiesMIDDLETON v. BANKERS' & MERCHANTS' TEL. CO.
Decision Date06 May 1887
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Henry Sampson and Gummey & Fletcher, for complainants.

R. J Ingersoll and J. H. Barnes, for respondents.

BUTLER J.

But two exceptions remain; all others have been withdrawn. These relate to the fees of counsel and compensation of the master. The court realizes the danger of overestimating the value of such services in cases like this, and feels no hesitation about interfering where the circumstances warrant it. As respects the fees of counsel, it must be understood that the court has no personal knowledge, either of the extent of services, or their value. The master reports that the calls upon counsel were very frequent, weekly, and sometimes much oftener, throughout the whole period of their employment, and that the sum allowed (but a small part of the amount claimed) is reasonable and just. In answer to this I am not referred to anything but the record of the proceedings, which shows virtually, nothing pertinent to the subject. The services may have been very great without any indication of it appearing there. No serious questions were discussed before the court. The property and interests involved, however, were very large, and the proceeding was one that required professional knowledge, skill, and care.

If I knew the extent of the services I could not form an estimate of their value, without evidence. Since I left practice (26 years ago) the rate of compensation has no doubt greatly changed. The counsel should have just what the services could have been obtained for by contract, in advance, if such a contract were practicable; in other words, should be paid according to the usual rate of compensation for such service. The counsel themselves testify that they are justly entitled to much more than is allowed; and the master says the sum awarded is just. Now, what is there in the case to justify the court in deciding that this sum is too much?

As respects the master's compensation, the circumstances are different. He is called to assist the court in discharging its judicial functions, and his compensation may, and should I think, be measured by the standard of judicial salaries. The highest salary paid in this court is $6,000, and if the master is compensated as the judge is for the same period and extent of labor, he cannot complain of injustice. The master has filed a statement of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Insull Utility Investments
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 22 Diciembre 1933
    ...with other undertakings. See Finance Committee of Pennsylvania v. Warren, 82 F. 525, 527, 27 C. C. A. 472; Middleton v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 524, 525. "Having regard to these general principles and the special value of knowledge possessed by the trial court, much wei......
  • Weltner v. Thurmond
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 24 Diciembre 1908
    ...was excessive. It should in no event be higher than the amounts allowed to judges. (In re. Holdrom, (Mont.) 25 P. 438; Middleton v. Bankers &c. Co., 32 F. 524; Co. v. Potter, (Ill.) 71 N.E. 939.) The order allowing the compensation is appealable. A similar order is one for the payment of co......
  • Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. American Surety Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 4 Abril 1933
    ...with other undertakings. See Finance Committee of Pennsylvania v. Warren, 82 F. 525, 527, 27 C. C. A. 472; Middleton v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 524, 525." The record in the case does not enable us to determine with precision the amount of time spent by the master on the......
  • Universal Oil Products Co. v. Hall
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 9 Marzo 1935
    ...Oil Marketing Corporation v. Cravens (C. C. A. 8) 46 F.(2d) 938; Voron v. Chait, 101 Misc. 366, 167 N. Y. S. 657; Middleton v. Bankers' & Merchants' Tel. Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 524; Roxana Petroleum Corporation v. Colquitt (D. C.) 34 F.(2d) 470, So in this case, when Mr. Hall petitioned for allo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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