New-York tribune., 1908-03-20
NEW SLAP AT JACKSON.
CRITICISED BY COURT.
appellate DiUision DisappoUes Ap-
pOinting attaches Receivers.

Albany, March 1s.-The Appellate Division Third
Department, handed down to-day decision sharply
crticising, against public policy. the appoint
ment of attaches of the Attorney Generals once
receivers counsel to receivers OF corporations
The court reverses the order of the Albany specia
term in the of the Brooklyn Bank. appeaieo
by Charles NJ Higgins, one of the receivers Inc
court refuses TO approve a contract made by brush
Hasbrouck, the other receiver with ex-Deputy At-
torney General Charles A. Doison, fixing the ia'-
ters compensat tion as counsel to the receivers
In the course Of the unanimous opinion Justice
Cochrane declares
The great Office of the Attorney General should
not pc m 10 Or the The
possibility that the duties and
withhold approval of an employment, ,tb bs that
oecer Of w. e IS
inconsistent with the relations when tne Jaw d ,n
S' The @ statement is made and not denied, that at
cever this counsel was Deputy attorney S zen u +.
such for the purpose of becoming counsel for said
receiver herein. We thin; an emPoym,ent y,nt unTes hs
attorney General is charged with important and
ceiverships The receiver may be appointed on his
application and such appnca,onn nenarsI M Is there
fore vested with certain discretion In regard 70
such appca tions He has general GTGrssat o anI no
the estates of fnsovent corporations. BY the pro
visions VI ee 'ne ean m by the or
ment made to counsel without notice to the At
tOrney General. clearly indicating that the latter
has affirmative duty to perform IN protec;;iIIs
insolvent Gorporattons ion aga1Gsr eScessNe o'
The court further declares that the contract which
# is asked approve contrary to the spirit ana
policy of the law and cannot therefore be sane
toned 1t continues:
For another think the order should
not have been granted. The best interests OF the
trust confded the required their entire
co-operat ation including the selection of counse VINO
would have the confidence of both of them, 10 tne
end there might be unity of action rather than
friction. 1t is not of much consequence Whetn-
sci selected by Mr.. Hasbrouck we'll founded A
like this cannot properly be administered tin-
those charged with its administration as recelv
and counsel in entire accord There snouio
of some counsel who could cooperate with both re-
ceivers The argument that the counsel selected oy
Mr. Hasbrouck because of his experience ana kIloW-
edge of the affairs of the bank during the tenn
counsel is without force. There numerous other
attorneys well equipped and Quahhed 10 render 10
the receiver all necessary assistance. -
receivership vests in the court the assets or the
insolvent estate. A receiver is but an of1cer ana
agent the court subject to its control and drec-
ton in all matters pertaining to the trust. Ihe
primary object be accomplished is the conSerVa-
rights of the creditors and others whose
interests may be impaired because or t1e
financial calamity which has overtaken the corpora
tion. These rights and interests are paramount 10
those of receivers and their counsel. If the latter
subordinate their personal views TO Such
rights the court will see 10 IL that the
receivershp changed in order to accomplish SuCh
a result Where receivers become hostile court
could and should intervene to remove them and
appoint others.