In re George Halbert Co.

Second Circuit

In re George Halbert Co.

134 F. 236, 67 C.C.A. 18, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 134 F. 236 (In re George Halbert Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re George Halbert Co., 134 F. 236, 67 C.C.A. 18, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513 (2d Cir. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In support of the order sought to be reviewed, reference is made to two decisions: In re Mitchell, 1 Am. Bankr. Rep. 687, and In re Welge (D. C.) 1 Fed. 216. Both of these were under the bankruptcy act of March 2, 1867, c. 176, 14 Stat. 517, which provides that: “In addition to all expenses necessarily incurred by him in the execution of his trust in any case, the assignee shall be entitled to an allowance for his services in such case on all moneys received and paid out by him thus: [Giving various percentages.]” It must be assumed that Congress was advised of the fact that, under the language above cited, there had been occasions when trustees in bankruptcy who happened to be lawyers were allowed compensation for legal services in addition to their commissions, contrary to the almost universal practice, which refuses such allowances in the case of executors or of trustees generally. Presumably, it was to provide against such allowances being made under the bankrupt act of July 1, 1898, that Congress, in section 48 of such act (chapter 541, 30 Stat. 557 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3439]), provided as follows: “Trustees shall receive as full compensation for their services, payable after they are rendered [the various percentages therein stated].” This language [237]*237is so precise, so unambiguous, and so explicit as to preclude the allowance of additional compensation upon any theory of a dual personality.

The order of the District Court is reversed, and the claim for extra services is disallowed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In support of the order sought to be reviewed, reference is made to two decisions: In re Mitchell, 1 Am. Bankr. Rep. 687, and In re Welge (D. C.) 1 Fed. 216. Both of these were under the bankruptcy act of March 2, 1867, c. 176, 14 Stat. 517, which provides that: “In addition to all expenses necessarily incurred by him in the execution of his trust in any case, the assignee shall be entitled to an allowance for his services in such case on all moneys received and paid out by him thus: [Giving various percentages.]” It must be assumed that Congress was advised of the fact that, under the language above cited, there had been occasions when trustees in bankruptcy who happened to be lawyers were allowed compensation for legal services in addition to their commissions, contrary to the almost universal practice, which refuses such allowances in the case of executors or of trustees generally. Presumably, it was to provide against such allowances being made under the bankrupt act of July 1, 1898, that Congress, in section 48 of such act (chapter 541, 30 Stat. 557 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3439]), provided as follows: “Trustees shall receive as full compensation for their services, payable after they are rendered [the various percentages therein stated].” This language [237]*237is so precise, so unambiguous, and so explicit as to preclude the allowance of additional compensation upon any theory of a dual personality.

The order of the District Court is reversed, and the claim for extra services is disallowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 F. 236, 67 C.C.A. 18, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-halbert-co-ca2-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack