Union Nat. Bank of Chi. v. Badger

• Decision Date: 25 April 1899
• Citation: 79 N.W. 20,103 Wis. 39
• Parties: UNION NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO v. BADGER ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

103 Wis. 39

79 N.W. 20

UNION NAT. BANK OF CHICAGO

v.BADGER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 25, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; A. J. Vinje, Judge.

In an action by the Union National Bank of Chicago against Alpheus S. Badger and another Alex R. Mills was appointed receiver of the property involved, and from an order fixing his compensation he appeals. Affirmed.

This action was commenced to foreclose a chattel mortgage upon a lot of logs, lath, lumber, and shingles, of the value of about $38,000. Such proceedings were had that on November 21, 1895, the appellant, A. R. Mills, was appointed as receiver. He duly qualified as such, and took possession of and sold the property under the direction of the court. Upon filing his final account, objections were made by the plaintiff, and particularly to the claim of the receiver for services for 16 months at the rate of $200 per month. An issue was made up, and the matter was tried before the court. Final judgment having been entered in the action, the court passed upon the receiver's account, allowing his claim for services at $1,200, and directing the payment of the money remaining in his hands to the plaintiff. The receiver appeals from that portion of the order which allowed him but $1,200 for services, and disallowed his claim for $3,200. At the argument the plaintiff made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order was not appealable.W. J. Turner, Ross, Dwyer & Howitch, and Geo. P. Knowles, for appellant.

Dickinson, Kennedy & Graham, for respondents.

BARDEEN, J. (after stating the facts).

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied. The settlement and allowance of the receiver's account is a “special proceeding” in the action, within the meaning of subdivision 2, § 3069, Rev. St. 1898. The order of the court fixing the amount of the receiver's compensation, and directing the payment over of the money remaining in his hands, is “a final order affecting a substantial right,” and is therefore appealable. See Collins v. Case, 25 Wis. 651. The case of McKinnon v. Wolfenden, 78 Wis. 237, 47 N. W. 436, has no application to the facts here presented. In that case the receiver appealed from an order in the action made before his appointment without leave of court. The court very properly said that without such authority it was not competent for him to take the appeal. The power and duty of courts to fix the compensation of their own receivers is well established. In the absence of statutory regulation the matter is left entirely to the determination of the court from which he derives his appointment. High, Rec. § 781. We have no statute bearing upon the subject. So far as we are advised, no rule has been established in this state for determining the amount of compensation to be allowed receivers. In some states the courts have seen fit to fix such compensation by analogy to the cases of guardians, executors, or other persons occupying fiduciary relations. Id. § 785. The difficulty, however, of establishing any inflexible rule, is manifest. There are, no doubt, cases in which the receiver's duties and labors are exceedingly difficult and onerous, and in which his...