The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-27
FAILEY GETS S2S,666
SUPERIOR BENCH ALLOWS HIM LESS
THAN A THIRD OF HIS CLAIM.
neys In Iron Hall Litigation
FaiIey's Statements.

Inc compensation Of James F. Failey for
services performed as receiver of the Iron
han has been fixed at SIS, Go. This allow
ance was made yesterday afternoon by SUI
perior Court Judges McMaster, Harvey and
bartholomew, sitting together. Allowances
were also made to the attorneys who have
been engaged in the litigation. The decision
OF the court was made after a consultation
which lasted throughout the morning. Re-
ceiver Failey was not present, but all Of
the attorneys were III court. The three
judges took their seats shortly after .
o'clock and. after announcing that the con-
clusions reached had been unanimously con-
Cured in. Judge McMaster read the de-
cision as follows:
In the matter of the allowance asked
doT py receiver James f: Failey the court.
submitted and circumstances surrounding
tne trust, has fixed said receivers allow
anee at the rate $1,000 for the first year
ana at the rate Of $4,000 for the second
year, and at the rate of 5000 a wear for
the ten months of the current year which
nave already elapsed, making a total COM
pensation for such receiver. up TO the
tweniy-third day of the present month, OF
$3.50; Said receiver has heretofore re-
G 6aSe allowances which aggregate $1,000.
rom the total amount allowed would leave
= balance due Receiver James +. Failey of
StOV" WnICH ldSl-ndfneu sum Is ordered
said date.
In the matter of the petition of Hawk
ms x Smith the evidence shows that their
services have been very efficient and val
liable to the trust. and that the greater
portion of Mr.; Hawkins's time has been
employed in the rendition of these serv-
ices, and We have fixed the additional al
lowance of said Hawkins & Smith at s14,-
vOo In full Of their services TO the above
named date.
In the matter of the petition of Addison
=. harris the same may be Said in regard
10 the services rendered by him TO the
trust that has already been said with refer
ence 10 the services OF Hawkins & Smith,
except, perhaps. that he has no. devoted
as did Mr.. Hawkins. we have. therefore.
placed the additional allowance to Mr.. Har-
RS at 10000 in full of services to the
In the matter of the petition OF Harold
Taylor the court finds that he has devoted
MS entire time and services TO the trust
temporary receiver until the present time.
he has most efficiently acquainted himself
with all the details connected with such
management. and has been relied upon
largely by the receiver and by other counsel
and the court to furnish facts and informa-
ton In conducting the litigation in this
and other Jurisdictions which has arisen
out or the receivership, and has also par
ticipated in all of the legal Investigations
by the ether counsel. He has also pre-
pared many OF the petitions which were
necessary to be presented to the court for
It's action. and the entries embodying the
rulings and orders of the court thereon.
His office and the services of his clerk have
peen devoted almost exclusively to, the
trust, at his own expense. We have placed
the additional allowance to him at $3.50
up to the time heretofore mentioned.
In the matter Of the petition Of D.. w.
$1,000. We fully recognize that the services
performed by him in the case from first to
last are worth much more than this sum,
but Judge Howe has insisted that no greater
amount should be allowed to him than that
above stated: 1t would seem from the au-
thortties which we have had time to ex-
anime that counsel employed by a corpora
ton to resist an application to place it in
receivership; even though this resistance be
unsuccessful, may, under certain circum-
stances. be compensated out of the fund in
the hands OF the receiver. This does not
follow as a matter OF right, but is a claim
addressed to the sound discretion of the
court administering the trust, and while we
believe that We should have a right. prob
in resisting the application for the appoint
ment of a receiver, we prefer to place our
allowance upon the services which he has
rendered. and which have been recognized
by the court since the matter of these al
first came into question, as such
services can fairly be said to be for the
benefit of the trust and the parties inter-
therein.
I'm the matter of the petition of Cham
Finch, the evidence discloses that their en-
occurred after the appointment of
the temporary receiver in this action, and
that such employment was occasioned bu-
cause of two conventions of the members of
the order of the Iron Hall having been
held, one at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and
the other in this city. Each OF these con-
went through the form of elect
ing supreme officers. and each set of officers
to be the rightful officers of the
order. A contention thus arose between
these two sets of officers and one faction
employed the fir firm Of chambeEs; Picksns &
& Finch. These conventions were
held after the appointment of the tempo
rary receiver, and the connection of Messrs.
Chambers. Pickens &; Moores. and of Finch
& FINCH. with this case. seems TO have
grown largely. If not altosether, out of this
controversy between tho two factions. OF
course each faction was interested i'm de-
the appointment OF a permanent re-
ceIVer. put the employment or the respect
i've counsel. as stated, originated in the
between them. The authori-
are TO the effect that counsel employed
q corporation after a receiver has been
appointed have no standing TO be compen-
stated for their services out of the fund.
With this controversy between the two fac
tons undetermined. the court is unable
to say that either of the firms so employed
represents the order OF the Iron Hall: SO
that, If the petition presented and the allow !
lnce asked. came within the rules of law
down for such allowances. we would
still find ourselves unable 10 grant the Pc
tition or make the allowance because of
The undetermined controversy existing be.
tween the twof factions. The petition is,
denied"
@F oNN iho otAOA-
neys took a formal exception to his allow
ance. Ii is understood that this action will
not be followed up. Receiver Failey had
asked for $97, 800. or > per cent. of the
funds he expected to disburse. In his petit
ton OF Nov. Z. 1894. he asked Judge Winters
$4,000. which was ordered paid. The al
however, was contested, and yes
terday a decision was the result OF a suit
to set the allowance aside. Receiver Failey
has received $1,000 of total amount al
a. G.. Harris has received 5000:
Hawkins & Smith. 81. 900. and Harold Tay-
$1,000. The firm of Taylor x Keith were
paid $3.50 for services shortly after the re-
was appointed. ATTORNEY Howe. i'm
to the $1,000 allowed yesterday. has
received $1,000. Baker q Daniels had no
claim on file. They were retained in the
suit and at the time were paid
= GOO. Since then they have drawn $500. a.
Harris and Hawkins & Smith were also
engaged I'm the litigation which brought the
funds into court and received 5000 each.
This was before the receiver was appointed. |
IL is estimated that the total cost of re-
,eivers and attorneys in the various States \
Will aggregate 1851. 200.
NJ EEE.UNER EIEXss m ATENIENTG |