Semi-weekly herald., 1908-08-10

Owen F. Boyle, Receiver. and Reese
McCloskey. Attorney for Receiver
Colorado State Bank OF Durango.
Gentlemen:
We regret exceedingly that after
having practically reached an agree.
ment on every other question, we can
not accede to any one Of your three
alternative propositions respecting re-
ceiver's fees and attorneys fees.
When, In answer TO the application
made on yesterday to have the amount
of these fees fixed, in order that those
who stand ready to furnish money to
pay off the depositors Of the bank.
dollar for dollar, might know how
much money they are required to pay.
1t was, in refusing the application,
stated BY the court that notes listed
by the receiver as good" to the
amount of $4,000 would. in the event
of the payment of all demands against
the bank. be held by the receiver to
meet these fees, we were startled al
the exaggerated and exhorbitant
amount mentioned, but when after
having undertaken, In accordance with
a suggestion afterwards made, to On
deavor to meet even this demand, a
demand which appeared to us to be un.
reasonable, we were told by you and
furnished a list which showed that
what you really proposed to hold. was
notes Of the face value of $48.70O.
notes which were listed by tho re-
ceiver as good" at $38.300, and which
we are advised are worth at least their
face value, notes upon which there
would be in your hands, cash by way
of offsets to the extent of $16.62C.
none of which you would consent to
allow, we told you plainly that we
could not consent to such an arrange
ment. Many of these notes, but not
an amount In excess of the $4,000
mentioned, were needed In the plan
of adjustment under consideration.
| We gave you a list of those notes re-
quired, aggregating $10,970. and offer.
ed you your pick of other assets OF
the bank, If these notes were not suf.
f!cient security for your fees.
We offered among other things
bends of the Income Property com.
pany which you admit to be good to
the amount Of $4,000.
This you refused.
Your two alternative propositions as
stated at our interview this evening
are:
1. To pay to you $4,000 In cash
and leave $4,000 more In the said
Income Property company bonds, In
the hands of the receiver, out Of which
to pay these fees.
2. To provide In the contract for
the payment In cash, at the time the
money to pay the depositors in full
is turned over, such additional sum as
the court might fix for your fees.
The first Of these propositions sug
gests that you expect or will claim an
allowance of $4,000 for these fees and
this fact stares us In the face when
we consider the second.
We do not feel justified in accept
ing either under these circumstances
We again ask you to fix the amount
of your fees or at least to name a rea-
sonable amount beyond which they
shall not go. We do not consider $780,
900 as q reasonable amount but as be-
ing SO unreasonable, we are unable to
advise its consideration.
We desire to conclude the agree
ment SO nearly arrived at, and which
could be ready for approval by the
court in a few hours were 1t not for
the unfortunate disagreement on the
subject of fees, and we respectfully
urge you to reconsider the ultimatum
which you gave US on this subject at
| our recent interview.
Hoping to hear from you speedily,
we are Very truly yours.
T. ]. O'DONNELL
b. w, RITTER