St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-01-21
VICTOR ROBERTSON STAYS.
JUDGE BRILL DECLINES TO REMOVE
THE ASSIGNEE.
THE SITUATION REVIEWED.

The Duties of the Assignee of
Mast, Buford s. BurweN Conn
pany Are Intricate-Honesty
OF Robertson Not Attacked
by Those Who Seek His Re-
moval.
Judge Brill has denied the applIca-
ton to remove Victor Robertson as
assignee of the Mast. Buford & Bur-
we'll company. In memorandum
Judge Brill observes that the agreement
regarding the compensation of the
assignee should be closely scrutinized.
but it does not necessarily disqualify
the assignee, as its purpose may be to
secure competent man. There was
no understanding that favoritism was
to be shown. The fact that no action
has been brought to recover property
given to creditors in preference to
others is satisfactorily explained. The
attachment made by some creditors on
real estate in other states is under con.
test by the assignee. and until that mat
ter is settled it would De ill-advised to
bring an action to recover the property.
The holders OF collateral notes, which it
is claimed should be turned over by the
insolvent. reside in a distant stat e
and they do not appear to have
property in this state. Mast d Co.
claim to be creditors of Mast +.
Buford & Burwell in the amount of
S1I1,0O0, and Mast, individually
claims to be a creditor to the amount
$4,000. The collateral notes taken by
Mast were either directly collateral to
the notes held by Massachusetts and
Marlborough banks or collateral to
the Mast Endorsements, and these Ques-
tons can be sifted when all claims are
presented. There are large amounts in
notes held by third persons or creditors
held as collateral. 1t is necessary that
as much as possible be realized from
these notes. These collateral notes
are held by non-residents. If by the
agreement with Mr.. Robertson these col
laterals have been brought within the
jurisdiction of the court and placed in
Mr.. Robertson's hands the creditors
should not complain. The administra-
ton of this estate requires a vast
amount of labor and large responsible
ity, and calls for the exercise of good
faith. Many OF the questions involved
are intricate and difficult Counsel for
the petitioners concede the ability of
the assignee and do not question his
honesty. The settlement of the estate
has proceeded favorably. A very large
proportion of the creditors desire the
retention of the present assignee. Of
the leading creditors asking his re-
mOval, one is secured to the
full amount of its claim
and more; another seeks by proceedings
in another state to satisfy its claim out
of property belonging to the estate;
another has Endorsed the action of the
assignee while taking active steps for
his removal. One was originator of
and another joined in the agreement re-
garding colIaterats, which agreement
they now insist is a reason for removal OF
the assignee. There is ground for an in
ference that the opposition of the cred
itorS to the assignee is not based entirely
upon desire to promote the interests of
the estate. While not unmindful of the
smaller creditors who join in the petit
ton, it is thought that. under the Show
ing that has been made, their interests
are not jeopardiZed.