LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: Special Bank Commissioners vs. Cranston Savings Bank
Citation: 12 R.I. 497
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1880-01-26
Docket Number: 
Pages: 501–503
Volume: 12
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: Special Bank Commissioners vs. Cranston Savings Bank.

Special Bank Commissioners vs. Cranston Savings Bank.
Compensation of bank receivers and of masters in chancery.
Exceptions to the report of a master in chancery, to whom was referred the accounts of the receiver of the' Cranston Savings Bank.
A special commission was appointed in 1878, by the Governor of Rhode Island, under Gen. Stat. R.T. cap. 140, § 39, to examine the Cranston Savings Bank. The commission reported to the Supreme Court, December 6, 1873, that the bank was insolvent, and on that day a receiver of the bank was appointed by the court.
Early in 1877 the receiver submitted to the court his first report, covering the period from December 17, 1878, to January 1, 1877, and showing that the indebtedness of the bank, December 17, 1878, was $2,347,761.86, and that up to January 1,1877, five dividends, amounting together to 68 per cent, of the indebt edness, bad been declared arid paid. The receiver stated that he bad drawn as bis compensation $18,000, and asked for a farther allowance of $12,000.
February 6, 1877, this report of tbe receiver was referred to a master in chancery by a decree which contained the following directions: The master “ shall give public notice in the Providence Daily Journal and the Providence Evening Press, for two successive weeks, of the time and place at which he will proceed to examine said report, and shall thereupon examine said report and account, and the vouchers thereof, and the accounts and assets in the hands of said receiver, and report whether the said account is a just and true statement of the transactions of the said receiver, and what compensation ought to be allowed to said receiver for his services during the time covered by said report.”
July 9, 1879, the master reported that he, in obedience to the decree, had personally verified every detail of every transaction appearing on the books of the bank during the time covered by the receiver’s report. The master allowed the receiver $25,000 for the time covered by the receiver’s report, and stated his own fees as master to be $2,000.
To the fees thus stated, certain depositors in the bank objected.
January 26, 1880.

Pep Curiam.
The master’s report is modified by reducing the amount to be allowed the receiver, for compensation for services for three years and fourteen days, ending January 1, 1877, to $16,000, and the report, as so modified, is confirmed. The court allows the master $1,000 for his services. The court is of the opinion that $500 would have been ample compensation for such services as the master was expected to perform. He was not appointed to do the work of an expert, or detective accountant, but to examine judicially as a master, and report on the matters committed to him by the decree. Of course, if in his examination he had found anything suspicious, which, however, he did not, it might have been proper for him to apply to the court for authority to employ an accountant. The master, however, acting under a misapprehension, performed this labor, though apparently unnecessary, himself, and as he seems to have acted honestly, and as his labor was quite severe, the court has come to the conclusion, though somewhat reluctantly, to allow him for it, at the rate at which it could have been procured from a competent accountant. Order accordingly.
Charles Hart, for the receiver.
Abraham Payne, for the master.
Joseph T. Snow others, committee of excepting depositors, pro se ipsis.