Jacobs v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.

18 Conn. Supp. 134, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
DecidedAugust 26, 1952
DocketFile No. 71519
StatusPublished

This text of 18 Conn. Supp. 134 (Jacobs v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jacobs v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., 18 Conn. Supp. 134, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952).

Opinion

Cullinan, J.

Following Hartford’s catastrophic circus fire of July 6,1944, the fortunes of the circus corporation reached a perilously low point, creating doubt of its ability to rise from its ashes to reestablish itself as a medium of national entertainment. One hundred sixty-nine persons lay dead in morgues; 382 persons lay tortured and suffering with painful, critical and permanent injuries; an additional 112 persons sustained less serious but nonetheless distressing injury; legal actions with attachments aggregating fifteen million dollars appeared to plague circus management; internal factional dissension beset the corporation; several of its officers were under arrest charged with criminal negligence; public confidence in the organization had been shattered; and the corporation’s future, viewed from any angle, seemed desperate.

[135]*135Obviously, this dismal situation demanded prompt and decisive action, which was provided by Judge John H. King, a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court, who, on proper application, appointed Attorney Edward S. Bogin of Hartford as corporation receiver. That temporary designation was made on July 12, 1944; Mr. Rogin was confirmed as permanent receiver on September 15, 1944; he has acted during the intervening years; and he now seeks compensation for his total service, having received no preliminary allowance during his approximate six and one-half years of active participation in the receivership.

Mr. Rogin asks $175,000 as a reasonable fee. The circus corporation, which has obligated itself to pay the item, quarrels violently with this proposed figure, contending that it cannot be substantiated in fact or in law; that it represents a grossly excessive demand ; and that the duties of the receiver were largely those of a stakeholder rather than of an active receiver of a going concern.

The order of Judge King of July 12, 1944, provided : “That Edward S. Rogin be and he is hereby appointed temporary receiver of the said Ringling Bros.-Barnum and Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. -; that said Edward S. Rogin immediately upon taking effect of his said appointment shall proceed to the possession of all the books, papers, evidences of debt and property of said corporation, to collect all monies owing to it, and to take all lawful steps within his power to secure and preserve its assets.”

Judge King’s order followed the usual pattern in designating a temporary receiver. His language indicates that he was appointing a receiver and not a stakeholder and there can be no question but that a true receivership was intended by all parties and came into being through Mr. Bogin’s assignment to and acceptance of his tasks.

[136]*136While it is apparent that Mr. Bogin became a receiver rather than a stakeholder, he, nonetheless, served as a receiver for limited purposes in that at no time did he act as an operating or liquidating receiver of the business and affairs of the circus corporation. For only two days following his initial appointment did he have possession of any of the physical assets of the circus, an assortment of burned out and otherwise non-operating equipment together with a collection of animals, all of which were returned to the circus by him within forty-eight hours upon the posting of a sufficient bond.

Thereafter his activities, in the main, concerned themselves with the claims of the victims; the arbitration of those claims under conditions and procedure established by an arbitration agreement entered into voluntarily between the circus and the several claimants; the confirmation of the arbitration awards by the Superior Court and the allowance by the receiver of the amount of each judgment entered on the confirmation; the distribution of dividends to the claimants; and energetic exertion to the end that the circus would pay to the receiver its annual net income from operations.

Under the arbitration agreement, which has been referred to, the circus obligated itself not to become insolvent; not to reorganize under the Bankruptcy Act; to turn over to the receiver the full amount of any refunds in income taxes received by it from the bureau of internal revenue; to turn over to the receiver the proceeds of insurance; and, fundamentally, to turn over to the receiver the net profits of its operations. The agreement did not relieve him of responsibility. It imposed on him, as an officer of the court, the added duty of seeing that the terms of the agreement were faithfully observed by the corporation of which he was the duly appointed receiver. [137]*137Such accountability involved time, thought, ingenuity, imagination, and effort for which fair and reasonable compensation must be paid.

The months of 1944, immediately succeeding his appointment, constituted an active, time-consuming period for Mr. Rogin, since he was then charting a course for the receivership and since he was navigating in unfamiliar waters made tempestuous by internal conflict within the circus management when stockholders and directors, tom by bitterness and desperation born of disaster, divided into warring factions.

The years 1945 and 1946 were likewise difficult for the receiver, who, while being pressed by distressed claimants, was attempting to steer an even course with management, conscious of the ever-present danger of forced liquidation of the circus with a resultant complete loss of funds with which to pay dividends.

Thereafter, the receiver’s problems became less and less complex, less and less burdensome, and less and less time-consuming. By 1947 and during the remaining active years of the receivership, a general design for its conduct had been drawn so that Mr. Rogin was able to discharge his responsibilities without material complications or involvement.

The result of Mr. Rogin’s work was singularly successful in that claimants were paid one hundred cents on the dollar with a four million dollar aggregate distribution. To accomplish adequately the purposes of the receivership, Mr. Rogin was required to use his best efforts to the end that neither bankruptcy nor forced liquidation would interfere with operation of the circus. Failure in either respect might have been ruinous both to the claimants and the circus corporation. To assure accomplishment of this task, it became necessary to familiarize himself [138]*138with, all of the activities of the corporation, its financial operation, its liabilities, its management policies, its intramanagement difficulties, and above all to gather the eorporaton funds promptly to liquidate the just claims of the luckless victims of the fire. In discharging his obligations as an officer of the court, Mr. Rogin acted with skill and tact, he expended intelligent effort, and he attained highly satisfactory results in the conduct of the receivership.

Mr. Rogin has submitted an elaborate and detailed statement of his doings as receiver and has supplemented that document by oral testimony suggesting the expenditure of approximately 5000 hours in discharging his official duties. I have no question but that Mr. Rogin’s evidence has been offered in absolute good faith and with a genuine desire to assist me in arriving at a just result. However, it must be remembered that Mr. Rogin, having lived in close intimacy with this receivership for some six years, cannot be expected to have a completely objective or dispassionate approach to the problem of fixing a reasonable fee for his work.

For example, Mr.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Conn. Supp. 134, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-ringling-bros-barnum-bailey-combined-shows-inc-pactcompl-1952.