Steel v. Holladay

• Decision Date: 10 November 1890
• Parties: STEEL v. HOLLADAY.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

25 P. 77

19 Or. 517

STEEL v. HOLLADAY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 10, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; E.D. SHATTUCK, Judge.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

When the parties to a litigation, by their attorney's, ask the appointment of a person as receiver who is an interested party, and represent to the court that his appointment would save the salary to the estate of the receiver then in office and the court makes such appointment, and he serves as such receiver until removed, without making any claim for compensation, upon an application to the court, after such removal, to be allowed a salary during the time he so served where the court below refused to make such allowance held, that no error was committed.

R. & E.B. Williams and C.H. Carey, for appellant.

Williams & Wood and Mitchell & Tanner, for respondent.

LORD J.

This is an application of Joseph Holladay for compensation as receiver for services performed as such, in the care custody, and management of certain property, during the period named therein. The petitioner was appointed jointly with George Weidler, as such receiver, and alleges that a reasonable compensation for his services would be the sum of $250 a month, which aggregates, for the period during which he performed such services, in all the sum of $9,500, etc. After issue was joined, the evidence taken, and the court fully advised in the premises, it found the following facts: "First, that, at the time of the appointment of said Geo. W. Weidler and Joseph Holladay receivers herein, by the order and decree of this court, it was the understanding and agreement, and it was so represented to the court at the time of their appointment, that, in case they should be appointed such receivers in place of D.P. Thompson, they should not receive or claim any compensation for their services as such receivers, they both being interested in the property of which they were appointed receivers,--the said Joseph Holladay as mortgagee in possession thereof, and the said Geo. W. Weidler as the owner of three-eighths of the capital stock of the Willamette Steam-Mills Lumbering & Manufacturing Company; and that said Joseph Holladay continued to be, while he was such receiver, a mortgagee in possession of said property of which he was appointed receiver, and having and holding a lien thereon to the extent of $346,686.46, and was largely interested in said property as such mortgagee, and was also the principal party defendant to the said suit to which he was appointed such receiver, and would not have been appointed a receiver therein without the consent of Benjamin Holladay; and that he consented thereto with the understanding that said Joseph Holladay, if appointed such receiver, would not claim or be entitled to any compensation as such receiver; and that, in order to be appointed one of said receivers, he consented to act without compensation, and continued so to act during the whole time he was such receiver, without ever having filed or made any claim herein for compensation as such receiver," etc. The evidence upon this finding tends to show that there never was any agreement that the petitioner Holladay should not receive any compensation for his services as such receiver, but it does tend to show that there was a general understanding among the attorneys who represented the parties to the suit, and that it was so represented to the court, that the appointment of the petitioner and Mr. Weidler would result in saving to the estate the salary of the receiver then in office. The petitioner was a heavy lienholder against the estate, and his appointment would hardly have been asked or allowed by the court, unless the consent of the adverse party was understood, at least, to have been obtained. Judge Bellinger, who was of counsel for the adverse party, after admitting some conversations in which it was...