Stuart v. Boulware
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FULLER |
| Citation | 10 S.Ct. 242,133 U.S. 78,33 L.Ed. 568 |
| Decision Date | 20 January 1890 |
| Parties | STUART v. BOULWARE et al |
John E. Kenna, Alex. F. Mathews, and M. F. Morris, for appellant.
W. Hallett Phillips, for appellees.
FULLER, C. J.
William A. Stuart filed a bill against the Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs Company and others, in the circuit court of the United States for the district of West Virginia, praying, among other things, for the appointment of a receiver; and upon the 13th day of April, 1883, A. L. Boulware, of the city of Richmond, Va., was appointed, by consent, 'receiver of
Page 79
all the estate, both real and personal, of the defendant company.' He was required to give bond, in the sum of $50,000, to make an inventory of the property, upon taking possession, and to file it with the clerk of the court, to keep a full, clear, and accurate statement of his acts and doing, and to render an account monthly. It was further ordered that 'until further orders the defendant company shall be allowed to conduct its business of hotel-keeping as it may deem best for the interest of said company and its creditors, and its leases and contracts for the proper conduct of its business already made shall be allowed by the receiver to stand; but the receiver shall collect and account for the receipts of the company, allowing the said company all expenditures necessary economically to conduct its business, and shall report his receipts and allowances monthly to this court.' The receiver gave bond, and entered upon the discharge of his duties accordingly. It appears that the property at the time was leased as a hotel, but with the season of 1883 that lease terminated, and thereafter the receiver rented the property, from year to year, under the authority of the court. The rents for five successive seasons amounted to $100,000 and upwards, of which this record shows the receipt of more than $70,000, (including some amounts from sales,) the disbursement by the receiver of more than $67,000, the subsequent receipt of something over $14,000; and that all of the rents had been received and accounted for, except the receipts for the last season, the receipts and disbursements for that year having been reported to the court, but that report not appearing in this record. The record contains various petitions, reports, and accounts, by the receiver, and orders thereon, and it is also shown that the receiver sold cattle, horses, wines, and liquors belonging to the company, took various journeys, with his counsel, to Baltimore, New York, and Parkersburg, and had litigation. In September, 1887, the Greenbrier White Sulphur Springs property, proper, and some other property of the company, were sold, by special commissioners...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., No. 7784.
...Fidelity Trust Co. v. Hutchison Chemical & Alkali Co., 221 F. 63 (C. C. A. 8). Receiverships, as illustrated by Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78, 10 S. Ct. 242, 33 L. Ed. 568; Eames v. H. B. Claflin Co. (C. C. A.) 231 F. 693; Presidio Mining Co. v. Overton (C. C. A.) 286 F. 848; J. C. T......
-
Comm'r of Ins. v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
...1017;Greene v. Cronin, 314 Mass. 336, 344, 50 N.E.2d 36; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 537, 26 L.Ed. 1157;Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568;Cintas v. American Car & Foundry Co., 135 N.J.Eq. 305, 38 A.2d 193. Compare, as to the review of discretion at law......
-
County Corp. of Md. v. Semmes, No. 60.
...since the theory of the allowance is that the fees are part of the receiver's expenses. High on Receivers, § 805; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; Bowers v. Soper, 148 Md. 695, 130 A. 330. While it is in the discretion of the court, the usual and better practice ......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. Robertson, No. 35235.
...250; Lycan v. Miller, 56 Mo. App. 79; 15 C.J. 105, sec. 210; Berry v. Rood, 225 Mo. 85; Greely v. Bank, 103 Mo. 212; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. ELLISON, J. This is the same cause reported in 342 Mo. 139, 113 S.W. (2d) 795, but involves a different phase of ......
-
Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., No. 7784.
...Fidelity Trust Co. v. Hutchison Chemical & Alkali Co., 221 F. 63 (C. C. A. 8). Receiverships, as illustrated by Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78, 10 S. Ct. 242, 33 L. Ed. 568; Eames v. H. B. Claflin Co. (C. C. A.) 231 F. 693; Presidio Mining Co. v. Overton (C. C. A.) 286 F. 848; J. C. T......
-
Comm'r of Ins. v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
...1017;Greene v. Cronin, 314 Mass. 336, 344, 50 N.E.2d 36; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 537, 26 L.Ed. 1157;Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568;Cintas v. American Car & Foundry Co., 135 N.J.Eq. 305, 38 A.2d 193. Compare, as to the review of discretion at law......
-
County Corp. of Md. v. Semmes, No. 60.
...since the theory of the allowance is that the fees are part of the receiver's expenses. High on Receivers, § 805; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; Bowers v. Soper, 148 Md. 695, 130 A. 330. While it is in the discretion of the court, the usual and better practice ......
-
American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. Robertson, No. 35235.
...250; Lycan v. Miller, 56 Mo. App. 79; 15 C.J. 105, sec. 210; Berry v. Rood, 225 Mo. 85; Greely v. Bank, 103 Mo. 212; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. ELLISON, J. This is the same cause reported in 342 Mo. 139, 113 S.W. (2d) 795, but involves a different phase of ......