Wilkinson v. Washington Trust Co. of City of New York

Citation102 F. 28
Decision Date08 May 1900
Docket Number1,311.
PartiesWILKINSON v. WASHINGTON TRUST CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

J. M Moore and W. B. Smith, for appellant.

F. G Bridges and W. T. Wooldridge, for appellees.

Before SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal of Charles B. Wilkinson, the receiver of the property of the Pine Bluff Water & Light Company, from an order of the circuit court which refused to allow him $2,500 additional compensation for his services as receiver subsequent to a decree of foreclosure rendered on January 23 1893, and which also refused to award him $750 in payment of the services of attorneys at law whom he had employed to prepare and present his reports. In a suit brought by the Washington Trust Company of the City of New York, the trustee for the mortgage bondholders, against the mortgagor, the Pine Bluff Water & Light Company, the appellant, Wilkinson, was appointed receiver of the property of the water and light company on October 24, 1891; and the works of that company were operated under his direction as receiver from that time until some time in September, 1893, when they were delivered to the purchaser under a decree of foreclosure which had been rendered in the case on January 25, 1893. The decree of foreclosure allowed to the appellant, Wilkinson, $6,500 as compensation for his services as receiver, and appointed him special master to make the foreclosure sale and to carry out the provisions of the decree. He sold the property under the decree for $240,000 on April 5, 1893. On December 15, 1894 he filed his report as receiver and on the same day his separate report as special master. In the reports filed at this time he did not ask for any further compensation as receiver, nor for the payment for services of attorneys in preparing these two reports, although he now complains that he has not been allowed $2,500 additional compensation for his services as receiver between January 25, 1893, and September, 1893, and that he has not been allowed $500 which he paid to Mr. H. D. Wood for preparing and presenting these reports. When these reports were presented they disclosed the facts that he had paid his attorneys $1,441.50 for legal services and expenses; that he had paid to the solicitors for the complainant, for their services and expenses, $6,500; and that he had paid to himself, as compensation for his services as receiver, $6,500; and in his report as master he prayed that he might be allowed $2,500 as compensation for his services as special master, and that he might 'be permitted to pay to himself, as receiver, the balance in cash remaining in his hands, to meet such liabilities as may be established against the receiver, and to be subject to the order of the court herein. ' Thereupon the solicitors for the complainant stipulated that a decree might be entered, approving this report, and allowing the appellant $2,500 for his services as special master, and that upon turning over to himself, as receiver, the sum of $11,000 then in his hands as master, for the purposes mentioned in his report, he might be discharged as special master. Upon that stipulation an order to that effect was entered, and his reports were confirmed. After the appellant, as master, paid to himself, as receiver, this $11,000 in 1894, he seems to have had no more trouble with his accounts until on November 5, 1898, the court ordered him to file a duplicate of his final account as receiver within 15 days from that date. He did not comply with this order within the time there specified, but on January 23, 1899, he filed a final report, in which he credited himself with $250 paid H. D. Wood, attorney, for legal services in preparing, filing, and obtaining confirmation of his report of December 15, 1894, as receiver, and with $250 paid J. M. Moore and W. B. Smith for legal services in preparing, filing, and obtaining confirmation of his final report as receiver; and after allowing himself these credits he disclosed the fact that he still had in his hands a balance of $6,676.85, out of which he prayed the court to allow him $2,500 additional compensation. The court refused to make the allowance, struck from his credits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Dalliba v. Winschell
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1905
    ... ... trust and in the employment of servants, and has shown a ... Martin, 7 N ... Mex. 54, 32 P. 157; Wilkinson v. Washington Trust ... Co., 102 F. 28, 42 C. C. A. 140 ... ...
  • King v. Premo & King, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1963
    ...of Destitute Children v. McDaniel, Sup., 148 N.Y.S. 951; Elsesser v. Pfleging, 254 App.Div. 753, 4 N.Y.S.2d 275; Wilkinson v. Washington Trust Co., 8 Cir., 102 F. 28; 75 C.J.S. Receivers, Counsel Fees, § 383b, page 1048. The receiver states accounting and bookkeeping in respect to the recei......
  • Clifford v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1919
    ... ... in the efficient administration of such trust ... estates through the officers of the court. Coffey v ... v. Hopkins, 87 F. 505, 509 31 ... C.C.A. 94; Wilkinson v. Washington Trust Co., 102 F ... 28, 42 C.C.A. 140; ... ...
  • United States v. Kelley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 9, 2023
    ... ... accounting. See Wilkinson v. Washington Tr. Co., 102 ... F. 28, 30 (8th Cir ... ...
  • 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