Shirk v. Sheridan
| Decision Date | 15 October 1900 |
| Docket Number | 504 |
| Citation | 10 Kan.App. 463,62 P. 436 |
| Parties | DANIEL SHIRK v. FRANK M. SHERIDAN et al |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Decided October, 1900.
Error from Miami district court; JOHN T. BURRIS, judge.
Judgment of district court affirmed.
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS -- Attorneys' Fees -- Priorities. The order of the trial court, giving priority in payment to attorneys' fees over the claim of a pledgee of corporate stock out of funds arising from the sale of all of the property of a corporation, in an action for dissolution thereof, held to be sustained by the pleadings and the evidence.
Sheldon & Sheldon, for plaintiff in error.
Frank M. Sheridan, for defendants in error.
This controversy arose between Daniel Shirk, the plaintiff in error, who is the pledgee of thirty shares of corporate stock, and the law firm of Frank M. Sheridan and John C. Sheridan (since deceased), in the district court of Miami county, in an action brought by C. A. Dorsey and Frank M. Gaylord against the Paola Variety Store Company, a corporation, A. C. Stich, W. E. Stich, and Gussie Stich, for the appointment of a receiver and the winding up of the affairs of the store company.
A receiver was appointed, and with remarkable celerity he disposed of the property of the corporation, paid its debts, and duly reported his action as receiver to the district court, and the report was, on the application of all the parties, approved -- all within about six weeks from the date of the appointment of the receiver. At the date of such approval the entire stock of the corporation was held as follows: Dorsey, fifteen shares; Gaylord, ten shares, and A. C. Stich, seventy-five shares. A balance of about $ 3700 remained in the hands of the receiver, sufficient to pay about thirty-one dollars upon each share. The court ordered the receiver to pay at this rate to A. C. Stich upon his seventy-five shares of stock and to turn over the balance to the clerk of the court, to be paid out to the other two stockholders or their assigns, as might subsequently be ordered. Prior to this, Sheridan & Sheridan had served upon the defendants in the action notice of their claim of an attorney's lien upon all moneys due or to become due to the plaintiffs, Dorsey and Gaylord, in the action, and on the next day after the confirmation of the receiver's report Daniel Shirk appeared in the action as an interpleader to contest the said claim. fee as stated.
The motion alleged that the services were reasonably worth the amount claimed; that they were performed at the request of Dorsey and Gaylord, but with the knowledge and approval of Shirk and the other pledgees, and that such approval continued throughout the litigation, and that Shirk and the other pledgees "are claiming the benefits arising out of and from the professional services aforesaid of these movers, on said fund." The motion also set forth in detail the nature of such services and what was accomplished thereby, and averred the insolvency of Dorsey and Gaylord. Thereupon Daniel Shirk withdrew his interplea and filed a motion containing substantially all the allegations of the interplea, and asking the court to order the clerk to pay over to him, Shirk, the entire distributive share appertaining to the Gaylord stock -- that is, the sum of $ 930. The issues thus arising were all tried together upon affidavits of several persons and the oral testimony of John C. Sheridan.
The testimony on behalf of Sheridan & Sheridan tended to prove the averments of their motion, while the affidavit of Daniel Shirk tended to prove that he had not authorized Gaylord or Dorsey to bring any action for him or for his benefit, or directly or indirectly to employ any counsel for him in the present action, or to create any lien on the said stock as...
To continue reading
Request your trial