In re Portington

S.D. New York

In re Portington

19 F. Cas. 1082, 8 Ben. 175

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 15, 1875·Published

Opinion

BLATOHFORD, District Judge.

I think the order must be vacated for the reason secondly assigned by the register. The matter of the compensation is for the court to adjust, and not for the clerk to tax as fees. But, I think that if the register has received any money, in excess of lawful compensation, he can, under general order No. 30, be ordered by tbe judge to pay it into court. In this view, the services and disbursements should be certified by the register, as he suggests.

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

BLATOHFORD, District Judge.

I think the order must be vacated for the reason secondly assigned by the register. The matter of the compensation is for the court to adjust, and not for the clerk to tax as fees. But, I think that if the register has received any money, in excess of lawful compensation, he can, under general order No. 30, be ordered by tbe judge to pay it into court. In this view, the services and disbursements should be certified by the register, as he suggests.

In re Portington, 19 F. Cas. 1082, 8 Ben. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1875).

Pincite

19 F. Cas. 1082 (In re Portington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.