Stuart v. Boulware

Decision Date20 January 1890
Citation10 S.Ct. 242,133 U.S. 78,33 L.Ed. 568
PartiesSTUART v. BOULWARE et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

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 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 appointed by the court, for $380,700, to the complainant, Stuart. O the 26th day of October, 1885, the receiver was 'autho- rized to retain to his own use, out of any funds in his hands as such receiver, and on account of his services, the sum of thirty-five hundred ($3,500) dollars; and he is further authorized to pay Legh R. Page, Esquire, the sum of eighteen hundred ($1,800) dollars on account of his services as counsel to said receiver.' On the 5th day of February, 1889, the receiver filed his petition, setting forth that during his said receivership, acting under authority from the court, he had rented out the property for five successive seasons for more than $100,000, all of which had been accounted for, except the receipts from the last year's renting, and the receipts and disbursements for that year had been reported to ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • County Corp. of Md. v. Semmes, 60.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • January 15, 1936
    ...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 ......
  • Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 18, 1928
    ...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. Turne......
  • Comm'r of Ins. v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 8, 1945
    ...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, Ba......
  • American Constitution Fire Assur. Co. v. Robertson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 11, 1938
    ... ... 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. 27 ...           ... OPINION ...          Ellison, ... [120 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT