Spears v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 10 December 1902
• Citation: 70 S.W. 1060
• Parties: SPEARS et al. v. THOMAS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

70 S.W. 1060

SPEARS et al. v. THOMAS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 10, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Bourbon county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Judicial accounting by Claude M. Thomas, as receiver of the estate of Thomas Woodford, deceased. From an order fixing the receiver's compensation for his services, Sallie W Spears and others appeal. Reversed.

McMillan & Talbott and E. M. Dickson, for appellants.

T. L Edelen and Hazelrigg & Chenault, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

A controversy over the will of Thomas Woodford resulted in the appointment of Claude M. Thomas as receiver by the circuit court. The estate consisted of $136,000 in promissory notes more than $12,000 in bank stocks, and real estate of the value of more than $40,000. At the time the property of the estate was placed in the hands of the receiver, its estimated value was about $200,000. The receiver managed the estate in the most successful way, and, after holding it about three years, it was valued at two hundred and forty-odd thousand dollars. The receiver made a detailed report as to the management of the estate, and as to its condition. With that he filed exhibits, and also some affidavits showing the value of the estate, and the admirable manner in which it had been managed. The receiver's report was considered upon his motion for an allowance for his services. No other evidence was offered on the question. Thereupon the circuit court allowed him $15,000. This appeal was prosecuted to have the action of the circuit court in making the allowance reviewed.

The conduct in the management of this estate shows that the circuit court selected one eminently fitted to perform such important duties. In accepting the appointment, the receiver assumed a great responsibility. The circuit court, being acquainted with the character of the receiver and the services performed, was well prepared to fix the amount of compensation to pay him. Under such circumstances, the circuit court has a large discretion, and only when we are convinced that he has erred in its exercise will we disturb his finding. The following rule is enunciated by High. Rec. § 781: "The power of courts of equity to fix the compensation of their own receivers is well established, and results necessarily from the relation which the receiver sustains to the court; he being its officer or agent deriving his functions only from that source. In the absence therefore, of any legislation regulating the receiver's salary or compensation, the matter is left entirely to the determination of the court from which he derives his appointment. And in passing upon the compensation of a receiver an appellate court will ordinarily defer much to the judgment of the court below, by which the receiver was appointed; that court having had the supervision of his conduct." The United States supreme court, in Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568, said: "Nor is there any doubt of the power of courts of equity to fix the compensation of their own receivers. That power results necessarily from the relation which the receiver sustains to the court, and, in the absence of any legislation regulating the receiver's salary or compensation, the matter is left entirely to the determination of the courts from which he derives his...