In re O'Hara

M.D. Pennsylvania

In re O'Hara

166 F. 384, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 21, 1909

DocketNo. 875

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 F. 384 (In re O'Hara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re O'Hara, 166 F. 384, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407 (M.D. Pa. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

ARCHBALD, District Judge.

Counsel for the bankrupt was allowed a counsel fee of $50 for assisting the bankrupt in preparing and filing his schedules, and now asks a like sum for services in endeavoring to sustain his exemption claim. There was considerable controvers}'- over the exemption, including a hearing before the referee and an appeal to the court; and, although the claim in both instances was disallowed, it may well be that, as between the bankrupt and his attorney, the amount now asked for was fully earned. But the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 563 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447]) only provides in section 64b (3), for payment out of the estate of “one reasonable attorney’s fee ⅜ * ⅜ for professional services actually rendered * * * to the bankrupt in involuntary cases while performing the duties herein prescribedevidently referring to the duties previously enumerated in section 7a. In re Woodard (D. C.) 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 692, 95 Fed. 955; In re Payne (D. C.) 18 Am. Bankr. Rep. 192, 151 Fed. 1018. These are duties which aid in the settlement of the estate, which is no doubt the reason for the allowance to counsel, and among them the endeavor to secure for the bankrupt his exemption claim is not one. In re Castleberry (D. C.) 16 Am. Bankr. Rep. 430, 143 Fed. 1021. The same is true where the services have to do with obtaining a discharge, which shows the principle involved. In re Brundin (D. C.) 7 Am. Bankr. Rep. 296, 112 Fed. 306.

The exceptions are overruled, and the action of the referee is affirmed.

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

ARCHBALD, District Judge.

Counsel for the bankrupt was allowed a counsel fee of $50 for assisting the bankrupt in preparing and filing his schedules, and now asks a like sum for services in endeavoring to sustain his exemption claim. There was considerable controvers}'- over the exemption, including a hearing before the referee and an appeal to the court; and, although the claim in both instances was disallowed, it may well be that, as between the bankrupt and his attorney, the amount now asked for was fully earned. But the bankruptcy act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 563 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3447]) only provides in section 64b (3), for payment out of the estate of “one reasonable attorney’s fee ⅜ * ⅜ for professional services actually rendered * * * to the bankrupt in involuntary cases while performing the duties herein prescribedevidently referring to the duties previously enumerated in section 7a. In re Woodard (D. C.) 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 692, 95 Fed. 955; In re Payne (D. C.) 18 Am. Bankr. Rep. 192, 151 Fed. 1018. These are duties which aid in the settlement of the estate, which is no doubt the reason for the allowance to counsel, and among them the endeavor to secure for the bankrupt his exemption claim is not one. In re Castleberry (D. C.) 16 Am. Bankr. Rep. 430, 143 Fed. 1021. The same is true where the services have to do with obtaining a discharge, which shows the principle involved. In re Brundin (D. C.) 7 Am. Bankr. Rep. 296, 112 Fed. 306.

The exceptions are overruled, and the action of the referee is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F. 384, 1909 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ohara-pamd-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack