New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-06-24
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
COMPLAINTS OF REFEREES FEES.

COMPLAINTS OF REFEREES FEES.
ncvs THAT ILLEGAL ExACuoNs ARE MADE IN
Dr., ESTATE FORECLOSURE eUITs-THE LAW
Upon TIE SUBJECT.
Dealers in real estate in this city complain
Via, they term the Illegal exactions OF referees IN
vas. estate foreclosure SUITS They say thst although inc
,.rer Ia by law limited certain moderate fees yet
- q, the lack OF information the subject, those
- are dsnosed to obtain money dishonesty very often
80. our times the legal charge, trusting to the cred
r,;tv or ignorance of those who have 10 pay H. ino
ree for example, is supposed TO perform the des VI
,ct,oneer himself yet without any authority, an aue
.,,asr ia in nearly every case employed I'll stated
ar, me usual fee real estate sale at auction Is 20
e. ,bs marcel OF land matter how many city lOs u
may contain. The Price charged those whose properly
. eioed out ID is asserted $25 per lot, SO that wheh
marcel OF land contains ten lots the lee charsed
instead OF s25, which in itself Is uu*u'noi"'u
re money thus Illegally obtained is divided between
the referee and the sueoaeer, some OF the
allowing the referee than one-aaif tie zee IL mas
nen decided that unless parties 10 suit agree upon
ths compensation Of the referee he has no fen' nO
trarily to fix the fees compensation ana the o"he "
the equity Of redemption, OF other person ihteios'
may compel him to his bill taxed before the court III
which the foreclosure action is brought Ihe referee
Is entitled only 10 the same amount Vi ies
law TO sheriff for C similar duty
T,,s srh,cet has been considered by the Supreme
Courf General Term in the case OF lines against F'
cell Vol H. Sup CT Rep, p. $685. In TITS case the rei-
cree claimed 800 compensation On foreclosure SALE
which was allowed at special term VI the suirohe
Court From this decision appeal was taken ana
Judge Daniels, In delivering tue oph''Vh VI 'A 0"''
says: .
By the Judiciary act OF 1897, among other things II
enacted that, after the hrSt Aioha'y 4I "S VI
year sheris should sell any lands Ia tAer respectES
counties ordered 20 bc sold by decree OF any court On
record 10 this state aud give cOnyey6nees thcreot III inc
ssfne manner and with hike effect, was done 10y a
ehancery, and for that service II w.H
further that in addition TO hls e &c s "o
sales by virtue Of an eXecnti9n nat 1ae sa9e sio u
While this act limits the fees TO the amount OF $40 IL
may we'll he doubted whether the restriction 20 tltt
proyde for HI the Revised Statutes for the restriction
OF the fees would necessarily exclude TIE right to
the commissions allowed 10 be awarded IN me dseretlo
of the Court 10 an amount not exceeding go.
When the power conferred under which referee
of he sheriff no provision made declaring what tees
lie should be entitled to receive for the performance VI
the service.
The Court IN conclusion, holds that the fees OF a
referee in such should be taxed at the same rate as
the statute allows the sheriff for the performance of the
same services $40, and additiona! allowance In the
discretion Of the Court not exceeding $40. In 1863
DAVIS of 1862 chap $500, law was enacted directing
all sales of real estate in this city, except sales in cases
of PARTITION 10 be made BY the sheriff. aud fixing his fees
on such sales al about S5; but the Court OF Appeals
held this act to be invalid askin ag re h. A. y;
quenJly passed DAVIS OF 1874 chap Is2t eIihoflLMs
sales OF real estate IN the City OF 10 I've mace
by the sheriff by referee appointed FOR that purpose
IL further provided By sad ameiidmen tat a. any
sale made 10y referee greater should be lseo
as COMPENSATION than as allowed by the ACT Of 1863.
Several welknOvn lawyers agree that TIE charges OF
referees arbitrary, ranging from $40 10 500 ad
even higher The decision OF Judge Daniels referred 10
above fixes the legal charge at $50, many conccue tu'
only observed IN this district and only here %til
point l. made by the plaintiffs attorney. They say that
there entire mistake aboa the auct0ncers Fec as
rect lax on the iitigants Almost ala auconeers offer 10
divide these with lawyers sending the iieiT buhi
ness but the plaintiffs attorney selects the auctioneeF as
Often or u ner than the referee and has more oFor'u-
nity than the make this division obaDy
majority respectable referees refuse this division III
three reports sale made within two days in one case
the roferee charged $75, In the others, SIG 80 each