The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-06-23
COURTS
RULING
REVERSED
United States Circuit Court Of
Appeals Enter Opinion In
GIaddlng Case.

An opinion has been handed down in
the United States circuit court OF appeals
for the first circuit at Boston In the b. II.
Gladding Co. bankruptcy case. The
opinion is an important one as 1t re-
verses the rulings OF many district courts
and alters the practice which has been In
vogue for years In some places. including
Rhode Island.
The decision is briefly to the effect that
a reasonable allowance shall be made In
bankruptcy cases for the services or as
sisnees under common law assignments.
who have so carried on the settlement
that the estates have been benefited.
The case in which this decision was
rendered went to Boston on the petition
Of f. A. Chase and others, assignees OF
the Gladding company, for compensation
for services rendered In the care and
preservation OF the estate and for ex-
penses Incurred and rent OF premises. 1t
was argued for the petitioners by Seeber
Edwards, with whom were associated j.
c. Collins. Jr., and Edwards q Angel.
The court, In deciding the case, hands
down an opinion written by Judge Put
nam which is In part as follows:
This is a petition asking for a revision
of the decree of the district court for the
district of Rhode Island. in the matter
of b. III. Gladding Company, bankrupt.
The bankrupt Is a corporation domiciled
In Rhode Island. and on the 9Th day Of
September. 1902, IL made general COM
mon law assignment to the petitioners for
the benefit OF its creditors. directing an
equal distribution among them"
After reviewing the case thoroughly
the court says:
ION the whole II Is plain that under
the special circumstances of many cases
of this character there may arise a
strong equity in favor OF such allow
ances as are now claimed, and that there
Is no provision OF statute and no declara-
ton OF any court OF authority holding
that as a matter OF law they should new
er be granted. on the other hand, so far
as there are any indications which we
are bound to regard. they are to the con-
trary Therefore. in the present case the
district court should ascertain and deter
mine whether, under all the circum-
stances. the petitioners are equitably en-
titled to their disbursements, or any part
thereof reasonable allowances for their
services, and protection against out
standing claims for rent. None OF these
matters should be disposed of on any ar
bitrary rule OF law that neither class OF
allowances can he made. but they should
be determined according TO what is rea-
sonable and equitable In view OF all the
conditions
"Since this was prepared the supreme
court on MAY lS l903 passed down its
opinion in Randolph VS.. Scruggs. which
assures US that the conclusion reached
herein is correct. Nevertheless. Rondolph
VS.. Scruggs does not cover all the details
involved at bar. Moreover. the directions
and accompanying explanations herein
contained seem necessary for the gull
dance OF the district court. We note.
however. that Randolph VS.. Scruggs Is
careful To hold that an equitable and
reasonable allowance for the services Of
assignors like the petitioners Is for only
such as have benefited the estate
Therefore. that limitation and all the
phra seology of the opinion i'm Randolph
VS.. Scruggs must be understood as adopt
ed by us.
Let there he a decree In accordance
with our opinion passed down this day
with costs for the petitioners"