Miers v. Columbia Mut. Bldg., Etc., Ass'n

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Miers v. Columbia Mut. Bldg., Etc., Ass'n

166 F. 781, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5464

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedSeptember 12, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 166 F. 781 (Miers v. Columbia Mut. Bldg., Etc., Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miers v. Columbia Mut. Bldg., Etc., Ass'n, 166 F. 781, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5464 (circtsdny 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

It appears that the investigation before the master was conducted under circumstances which quite likely prevented counsel from fully presenting their views. Time was limited, and one of them was in ill-health and unable to attend throughout. On examination of the record, and what is now urged, I think allowance to receivers’ counsel should be increased $1,500. Although it was the same counsel who instituted the suit and drew the bill of complaint, services in that capacity should also be compensated; but, of course, these are limited to the preparation and service of the bill, since there was no defense interposed. Examination of the bill shows the nature and extent of these services, and $1,000 is not an unreasonable allowance therefor, and is allowed. In all other respects report is confirmed.

Exceptions overruled.

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

RACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

It appears that the investigation before the master was conducted under circumstances which quite likely prevented counsel from fully presenting their views. Time was limited, and one of them was in ill-health and unable to attend throughout. On examination of the record, and what is now urged, I think allowance to receivers’ counsel should be increased $1,500. Although it was the same counsel who instituted the suit and drew the bill of complaint, services in that capacity should also be compensated; but, of course, these are limited to the preparation and service of the bill, since there was no defense interposed. Examination of the bill shows the nature and extent of these services, and $1,000 is not an unreasonable allowance therefor, and is allowed. In all other respects report is confirmed.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F. 781, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miers-v-columbia-mut-bldg-etc-assn-circtsdny-1908.