Havemeyer v. Loeb
Opinion of the Court
Exceptions to master’s report, allow-
I see no reason to dissent from the conclusions of the master as to the amounts allowed for the services rendered. The question is, therefore, whether the several items are proper charges. The items for $100 for perfecting the debtors’ schedule ; $75 for services in preparing for an accounting before the State court; $20 for preparing and filing the bond required of the assignee ; $75 for getting «the bond canceled; $130 for' services respecting pledges; and $100 for interviews on the business of the trust seem to be proper within the rule. Counsel for plaintiffs insists that it must appear that the services rendered actually, benefited the fund,, and he relies on some expressions in the opinion of the learned judge in this case for excluding these items on the ground that they are not shown to have benefited the fund. But I understand the opinion to mean that while the assignee is acting in good faith and without notice of any intention on the part of creditors or a bankrupt assignee to attack the assignment, all disbursements of this character which are rendered necessary and proper by the duty and trust which the assignee has assumed towards the estate are to be deemed beneficial to the fund (see McDonald v. Moore, 15 Nat. Bankruptcy Reg. 26).
Defendant’s exceptions overruled.
Plaintiffs’ exceptions sustained as to item of $200.
Decree in accordance with this opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- HAVEMEYER v. LOEB
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published