Case Name: Barrie L. Balch and R. H. Conklin, complainant, and Oakland Lumber Company, a corporation, defendant; The Bristol Door and Lumber Company et al., creditors-appellants, v. Charles F. X. O'Brien, receiver; Benjamin J. Darling, counsel for receiver; Edward O'Bryne, special master, respondents
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-04-24
Citations: 108 N.J. Eq. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: Barrie L. Balch and R. H. Conklin, complainant, and Oakland Lumber Company, a corporation, defendant; The Bristol Door and Lumber Company et al., creditors-appellants, v. Charles F. X. O’Brien, receiver; Benjamin J. Darling, counsel for receiver; Edward O’Bryne, special master, respondents.
Judges: For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Barrie L. Balch and R. H. Conklin, complainant, and Oakland Lumber Company, a corporation, defendant; The Bristol Door and Lumber Company et al., creditors-appellants, v. Charles F. X. O’Brien, receiver; Benjamin J. Darling, counsel for receiver; Edward O’Bryne, special master, respondents.
[Argued October term, 1930.
Decided April 24th, 1931.]
Mr. George D. HendricJcson and Mr. Bmil Klein, for the appellants.
Mr. Benjamin Darling, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery confirming the report of one of the special masters of that court approving the final report and account of the receiver of the Oakland Lumber Company, and fixing the allowance of the special master, the receiver and his counsel.
The exceptions to the receiver's report and account are dated subsequent to the decree allowing the account and ordering distribution. This irregularity would be sufficient to preclude our considering the matter.
Our examination, however, of the questions argued leads us to believe that the receiver in a proper and lawful manner conducted the business of the corporation, and that services for which the allowances were made were rendered, and there is nothing presented to us that leads us to believe that the allowances were excessive. In fact, they seem to have been reasonable.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.
For reversal—None.