Straus v. Baker Co., 8152.
Decision Date | 06 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 8152.,8152. |
Citation | 89 F.2d 322 |
Parties | STRAUS et al. v. BAKER CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Allen Wight and Robert Allan Ritchie, both of Dallas, Tex., and Ulysses S. Schwartz and Claude A. Roth, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Alfred McKnight, of Fort Worth, Tex., Carl B. Callaway, of Dallas, Tex., and Sylvan Lang, of San Antonio, Tex., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges, and STRUM, District Judge.
In their motion for rehearing, Callaway and Reed vigorously attack our conclusion that no allowance should have been made them for services as attorneys for Baker Hotel Company and for Fenton J. Baker as operating cotrustee. A careful re-examination of the record confirms and strengthens us in our former conclusion. As to the Baker Company, and for services rendered to it before the reorganization proceeding, Callaway and Reed stood as any others of its creditors. If they had a claim against it, they should have proven it and taken in regard to it under the reorganization plan as its other creditors did. As to their claim for services to the company in the reorganization proceeding, not they, but Messrs. Lang et al., represented the company. Callaway and Reed represented, not the company, but Fenton J. Baker individually. Lang et al., in their statement in support of their claim, filed September 11, 1935, for a fee allowance for services as counsel for the Baker Company debtor, make this very plain. They say, and no one disputes it, indeed the whole record confirms it:
They say, further:
It is true that Callaway and Reed continued during the reorganization proceeding to draw $100 a month, as they had theretofore done, but this money was paid them, not by the company, but by the permanent trustee, under a generally understood arrangement in which Callaway and Reed, though paid by the trustee, were understood not to be personal counsel for him. In the injunction proceeding brought by the debtor in connection with the National Hotels Cash Plan, the following appears, at page 802 et seq. of the record:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. Whitman, 10799.
...702, 705; Burroughs v. Toxaway Co., 185 F. 435, 440. Fifth Circuit: — Straus v. Baker Co., 87 F.2d 401, 407, 408, 409, 410, rehearing, 89 F.2d 322, 324; First Nat. Bank v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 86 F.2d 33; Snell v. Frank Snell Sawmill Co., 284 F. 847; Id., 261 U.S. 619, 43 S.Ct. 364, 67 ......
-
Greensfelder v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...In re Allied Owners Corp., 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 187, 191; In re Prudence Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 729, 731, 732; see Straus v. Baker Co., 5 Cir., 89 F.2d 322; Zweifel, Tuohy & Crager v. Trans-State Oil Co., 5 Cir., 99 F.2d 650. The sum of $5,000 allowed him appears to have been adequate compen......
-
Watters v. Hamilton Gas Co.
...divided between the contributing participants and not increased in the aggregate. Straus v. Baker Co., 5 Cir., 87 F. 2d 401 (Modified, 5 Cir., 89 F.2d 322, but not in this particular); Steere v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 3 Cir., 98 F.2d 889; In re Buildings Development Company, 7 Cir., 98 F......
- Maibohm v. RCA Victor Co.