Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-09-24

says Washington letter TO the BaIti-
more Fun. In 1881 J. Catlett Gibson.
then United States Attorney for the
Eastern District OF Virginia, brought suit
against william II. Peters. receiver OF
the Exchange National Bank OF Norfolk
10 recover He0p which he claimed TO be
due him on account OF legal services In
connection with the prosecution OF
suit by the receiver against one II. II.
Mcdonald, which resulted in the collec-
ton Of $4,000 from the said Mcdonald.
Judge Hughes, OF the United States Dis
trIct Court gave Gibson Judgment
against the receiver July is, 1883 for
5000, bit Judge Bond. Of the Circuit
Court, differed from his brother on the
bench, and the case came 10 the SUI
preme Court.
From the briefs in the case Il appears
that Gibson offered his services 10 Re
ceiver Peters. claiming the right 70
prosecute the suit against Mcdonald
under section $50. II. s.. as follows: "All
suits and proceedings arising out OF the
provisions OF law governing national
banking associations IN which the United
States or any Of ifs officers or agents
shall be parties shall be conducted by
the district attorneys OF the United
States, under the direction and super
vision Of the Solicitor or the Treasury.
The brief states that the receiver In
stitutcd the suit against Mcdonald by
his own counsel under the direction OF the
Comptroller OF the Currency and OF the
Solicitor Of the Treasury. and claims That
he had and exercised the right to do
this without requesting the services OF
the District Attorney, who claimed the
right to come into the case without the
receivers consent.
Judges Bond and Hughes certified TO
the Supreme Court FIVE questions Tor us
decision. IN effect following:
l. Is the United States District At
torney entitled by virtue OF his Office TO
act as counsel for the receiver OF "a ma
tlonal bank without the request or CON
sent of said receiver. and without the
direction Of the Solicitor OF the Irea-
sury?
2. Conceding his right TO so appear. IN
case ne does appear OF his own motion
81 he entitled to any extra eompensa-
ton?
3 Must not his claim for such extra
compensation be presented to the Urea
sury Department for allowance by the
Comptroller Of the Currency?
T. After the services Of the United
States District Attorney have been ten
dercd TO and declined by the receiver IS
he entitled TO extra compensation loT
such offer Of services?
5. II he IS entitled to extra compensa-
ton shall it be paid out Of the assets
Of the bank or out Of the tund pro-
vlded for the payment OF district attor-
neys?
The plaintiff. Mr.. ]. Catlett Gibson, ar
gued the case IN his own behalf as
sisted by II. w. Hughes, son OF the
Judge, who gave him judgment Tor halt
the amount of his claim. For the re,
ceiver appeared Messrs. Dudley and
Kitchener. and r. S. Garnet. In the
course OF the argument 1t was stated
that this was the first time these ques-
tions were ever presented TO the court
for consideration. With respect OF the
practice in such cases II was said That
from the foundation OF the nauohal-
banking system until this time receivers
by and with the approval of the Comp
troller. have employed private counsel 70
represent them in the business and liu-
cation of the trusts, and these private
counsels have been paid for their ser
vices by the cOmptrollers.