St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-03-24
The AsSignee's Compensation
Reduced One-Half--or
$12,O39.9s.
Attempt to Secure Land
Decided in the COS for Spe-
cific Purposes.
The Liability of a Co-opera-
tive Organization Clearly
Defined.

The supreme court yesterday, through
Justice Collins, filed decision remand
ing the celebrated case of In re assign
George A. Clark ~ Bro, appellants;
National Bank of Commerce ct al, ap-
pellants, VS.. Albert Ii. Lindeke, as
signee of the first-named firm, respond
ent, with directions to reduce the
amount allowed as compensation to the
assignee from over $4,000, as claimed
and allowed by the lower court, to Sl2,-
039.9S, less than half the sum ostensibly
allowed. The appeal was from an order
of the district court auditing and allow
ing the final account of Mr.. Lindeke,
who, when he became assignee of Shot
well, Clerihcw & Lothman, inventoried
the stock at $3.50, 566.35, while the ac-
counts and bills receivable were sched-
uled at 1925, 2S3.32. The receipts from
the sale of goods and fixtures amounted
10 1886, 5Sl.51. and from cash in hand,
ETC., $2O5, 417.S7. The total amount of
established liabilities on which divi-
dends were paid by Mr.. Lindeke was
S1,002, 1881.
1t Will be remembered that William
Lindeke purchased nearly all the bank
rupt stock. and the creditors of the firm
at once objected to the allowance of the
amount because the assignee failed to
charge himself with the amount of prof
its derived by Indexes, Warner IL
Schunmer-fOr whom the creditors
claimed William Lindeke really pur-
chased the goods. and of which firm
they claimed the assignee was men,
ber-frOm sale of the bankrupt stock
so purchased. The supreme court
holds an assignee, either through him
self or an agent. cannot directly or in
directly become the purchaser of trust
property, and says that the trial court
was certainly broad enough when it
held that. from the evidence submitted,
William Lindeke was not purchasing
the goods for the firm of which both he
and the assignee were members.
There can be no doubt, 1t continues,
'but that proof was submitted upon the
trial of acts and circumstances of suS-
piciOuS character, strongly tending to
establish appellants contention that
the sale 10 Mr.. Lindeke was in reality
to the firm of which he was a partner,
but we do not think it strong enough
to overcome and overthrow the conclu-
sions of the court below"
The supreme court also holds that the
trial court was right when it refused to
charge the assignee interest on. the
money he received from the sale of the
goods during the time the same was
under his control; that it did not err
when it allowed the assignee to COM
promise the claim of $4,000 made by
MIR. Bracket for rental fees, by p .ying
him $4,000.
Coming down to the fees of SO, 900 al
lowed by the court to the assignee for
compensation for his services, and to the
attorneys. 81, 500 each. the supreme court
holds that the trial court had no right to
give Mr.. Lindeke more than the per
cent OF the receipts from the safe of the
property, as prescribed by the laws of
1887, which would give him Sl2.039.9S.
1t does not reduce the attorneys fees.
The syllabus follows:
First-On an examination of the evidence
produced upon hearing OF objections made
by creditors. TO the auditing and. allowing of
the final account of the assignee of all in
solvent firm, tits held that the finding of the
court below that certain personal property,
belongingto the insolvent estate and sold at
auction by the assignee, was not in truth or
In fact purchased by him, or by the firm of
Whichfhe was a member, and that neither
had All interest in such purchase, was sus-
Second "A trustee is only prohibited from
dealing with the trust property for his own
benefit while The trust continues. When his
duty towards the property ceases, he occu-
pies the same relation to it as does stranger
to the trust, and, acting throughout in good
faith, may become the owner of the property
by purchase CT otherwise.
ThiTd-1rustees are not reGnired to pay in
terest to the trust solely because the funds
have been deposited with their own, nor even
where use has been made of them in the
business of the trustee, unless there be super
ADDED some breach of the trust. An assignee
in insolvency is not required to invest the
trust funds so that they may earn interest or
return profit.
Fourth--A claim for very large amount
was presented against the estate There was
some question as to whether any part Oft
was proper claim for allowance, but acting
in coed faith on the advice OF his counsel,
and on the petit on of several of the larger
creditors of the insolveut bnt one of those
opposing, the assignee accepted PROPOSE
ton for a settlement. compromising for less
than one-fifth of the claim as filed. Held,
that the amount paid in such settlement and
compromise was proper claim against the
trust estate.
Filthy reason Of The provisions of sec
ton s. chapter 30, General Laws 1889, the
compensation of an assignee in insolvency
must not exceed the statutary percentage,
except i'll extraordinary cases involving un-
usual litigation The case must be eXtraor-
binary. in that unusual litigation results.
Held that the finding herein that this was
case of that character was not justified by
the evidence.