Taintor v. Franklin Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 13 April 1901
• Citation: 107 F. 825
• Parties: TAINTOR et al. v. FRANKLIN NAT. BANK OF NEW YORK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

107 F. 825

TAINTOR et al. v. FRANKLIN NAT. BANK OF NEW YORK.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

April 13, 1901

Frederick J. Moses, for the receiver.

Jesse S. L'Amoreaux, for a stockholder.

Boardman Platt & Solely, for Philip Carpenter, a claimant, and Philip Carpenter in person.

COXE District Judge.

The master was appointed to take proof of the claims against the Franklin National Bank and to fix and determine the compensation of the receiver and of his counsel. The master, after according a full hearing to all parties, filed on January 14, 1901, a carefully considered report in which he passes upon all the questions so referred. Philip Carpenter, a creditor, filed exceptions to the master's ruling disallowing a part of his own claim for services and he also excepted to the amount of compensation allowed to the receiver and his counsel. As stated at the argument the court is of the opinion that the master was not rigidly bound by the opinions of other members of the bar as to the value of Mr. Carpenter's services. Such opinions are competent to assist the court or jury in reaching a correct conclusion but they are not conclusive. If they were conclusive the reference to a jury or to a master would be an idle ceremony. There are innumerable instances where uncontradicted testimony of this character has been disregarded and where, upon a conflict, the trial court has declined to follow the testimony offered by either side and its action in this regard has been approved by the appellate courts. Head v. Hargrave, 105 U.S. 45, 26 L.Ed. 1028.

The principal ground of criticism of the report is that, as to 16 items of Mr. Carpenter's bill, the master has failed to pass upon each separately and has made a general finding deducting $957 from an account aggregating $2,207. As to this the master says:

'I have gone over with care the various items of charges, and find some excessive and other entirely reasonable, in my opinion. Without discussing them in detail, I may say generally, that the aggregate of the reductions which I think should be made approximate the sum of $1,000.'

It would, perhaps, have avoided misunderstanding if the master had adopted the course now suggested, but it must be assumed that a lawyer of the intelligence and experience of the master acted upon logical premises in reaching his conclusions. The court is not prepared to say that he was required to enter into the details demanded, but were this otherwise it would only result in sending the matter back to the master for a detailed statement of the various items...