Bailey v. Proctor

First Circuit

Bailey v. Proctor

171 F.2d 980, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2991

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 17, 1949

DocketNo. 4387

StatusPublished

This text of 171 F.2d 980 (Bailey v. Proctor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Proctor, 171 F.2d 980, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2991 (1st Cir. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, entered July 29, 1948, making a final joint allowance of compensation to the two receivers of Aldred Investment Trust, and further making an allowance of compensation to the law firm of Putnam, Bell, Dutch & Santry. We are quite familiar with this receivership as a result of •our consideration of numerous previous appeals. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Aldred Investment Trust, 1 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 254, certiorari denied 1946, .326 U.S. 795, 66 S.Ct. 486, 90 L.Ed. 483; In the Matter of Bailey et al., Petitioners, 1 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 980; Bailey v. McLellan, 1 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 1014, certiorari denied 1947, 331 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 1516, 91 L.Ed. 1848; Bailey v. Proctor, 1 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 78, certiorari denied 1947, 331 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 1515, 91 L.Ed. 1847; Bailey v. Proctor, 1 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 392; Bailey v. Minsch, 1 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 635, certiorari denied 1948, 335 U.S. 854, 69 S.Ct. 83.

The receivers were appointed on January 19, 1945, pursuant to a complaint filed in the court below by the Securities and Exchange Commission charging the management of the trust with “gross abuse of trust” within the meaning of § 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 841, 15 U.S.C.A. § 80a — 35. At the hearing in the district court on the petition for allpwance of compensation, counsel for the Commission stated that, in so far as the petition by the receivers was concerned, the Commission believed that the allowance of the amount claimed was within the sound discretion of the court, and he stated further that, with regard to the application of Putnam, Bell, Dutch & Santry, the Commission took no position for the reason that it was not sufficiently aware of the extent of the services rendered. Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the sums awarded in the order now under appeal fell within the allowable limits of the district court’s discretion.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, entered July 29, 1948, making a final joint allowance of compensation to the two receivers of Aldred Investment Trust, and further making an allowance of compensation to the law firm of Putnam, Bell, Dutch & Santry. We are quite familiar with this receivership as a result of •our consideration of numerous previous appeals. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Aldred Investment Trust, 1 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 254, certiorari denied 1946, .326 U.S. 795, 66 S.Ct. 486, 90 L.Ed. 483; In the Matter of Bailey et al., Petitioners, 1 Cir., 1946, 156 F.2d 980; Bailey v. McLellan, 1 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 1014, certiorari denied 1947, 331 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 1516, 91 L.Ed. 1848; Bailey v. Proctor, 1 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 78, certiorari denied 1947, 331 U.S. 834, 67 S.Ct. 1515, 91 L.Ed. 1847; Bailey v. Proctor, 1 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 392; Bailey v. Minsch, 1 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 635, certiorari denied 1948, 335 U.S. 854, 69 S.Ct. 83.

The receivers were appointed on January 19, 1945, pursuant to a complaint filed in the court below by the Securities and Exchange Commission charging the management of the trust with “gross abuse of trust” within the meaning of § 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 841, 15 U.S.C.A. § 80a — 35. At the hearing in the district court on the petition for allpwance of compensation, counsel for the Commission stated that, in so far as the petition by the receivers was concerned, the Commission believed that the allowance of the amount claimed was within the sound discretion of the court, and he stated further that, with regard to the application of Putnam, Bell, Dutch & Santry, the Commission took no position for the reason that it was not sufficiently aware of the extent of the services rendered. Upon consideration of the record, we conclude that the sums awarded in the order now under appeal fell within the allowable limits of the district court’s discretion.

The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F.2d 980, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-proctor-ca1-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack