Case Name: Charlotte Price, and Others, v. John White, and Others
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-03
Citations: 1 Bail. Eq. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charlotte Price, and Others, v. John White, and Others.
Judges: O’Neaix, J., and Harper, J., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 240–244

Head Matter:
Charlotte Price, and Others, v. John White, and Others.
A receiver, who discharges the duty assigned to him, is intitled to the usual commissions, although they may appear to be more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered. In some instances they may be more, in others less, than an adequate remuneration ; but even this is preferable to the uncertainty of suffering the rate of compensation to depend upon the discretion of the master. Nor is it any ground for an exception to the general rule, that the business was conducted almost entirely by overseers, and factors, inasmuch as the receiver has incurred the responsibility incident to these sub-agencies.
On a bill filed by a wife against the creditors of her husband, to injoin the sale of certain plantations, and slaves, claimed by them under an assignment from him, and by her under several settlements, it was ordered, that the sum of $2,000, per annum, be paid to her out of the crops, until the determination of the suit. The crops proving insufficient, after defraying expences, to pay the annuity, held, that she was not intitled to be satisfied for the deficiency out of the capital of that portion of the property, to which it was decided that the creditors were intitled, but that she was restricted to the profits: and that it made no difference, that the husband had previously agreed to pay her tho same annuity, absolutely; for even if such agreement had been made, it was not binding on the creditors, and, moreover, was suspended by the order.
The costs of a groundless application ordered to be paid by the party making it, although the costs of the cause, generally, were directed to be paid out of the fund in Court.
This cause came up upon exceptions to the master’s report; and was heard by De Sausstjre, Chancellor, at Charleston, in January, 1830. The bill was filed by Mrs. Charlotte Price, and her children, to injoin the sale of several plantations, and slaves, which were claimed by her and them, under various settlements, and which were included in an assignment, under the insolvent debtor’s act, made by her husband, Thomas W. Price, to the defendants, for the benefit of his creditors, of whom the defendant, John White, was the principal. Upon filing the bill in September, 1825, it was or« dered by the Court, that Col. William Cattell be appointed receiver ; and that he regularly pay over to Mrs. Price, out of the first proceeds of the crops, the sum of $2,000 per annum, heretofore agreed to be paid to her, until the determination of the suit. The cause was heard upon the merits, in January, 1827, by De Satjsstjre, Chancellor, by whom a decree was made, which was subsequently modified by the Court of Appeals; and by the decree, as modified, Mrs. Price was declared to be intitled to a part of the property in dispute, and the residue was directed to be sold for the benefit of the creditors of her husband.
The matters of account were referred to the master; and upon taking the account, a charge was made by the receiver, Col. Cattell, for commissions, of 5 per cent, on the whole amount which came into his hands, to wit,‘2 1-2 per cent, for receiving, and 2 1-2 per cent, for paying away, amounting in all to $657.87. The charge was objected to, by the defendants, as excessive, inasmuch as the receiver had a merely nominal management of the estates, the entire business of which had been conducted by the overseers of the several plantations, and the factor in Charleston. It was, nevertheless, allowed by the master.
The nett produce of the crops, after defraying expences, proved to be inadequate to the payment of the annuity to the complainant, during the pendency of the suit, and there was due to her an arrear of $1,324. It was insisted for the complainant, that this deficiency should be paid to her from the-proceeds of the property sold by the master under the decretal order. The ground relied on was, that previous to the order of Court, the full amount of the annuity had been paid to her by the defendant, Thomas W. Price, under an agreement .entered into by him, upon her surrendering the Chyhaw plantation to his management; which agreement was for the payment of the specified annuity, absolutely : and the order of Court, being, that it should be paid, “ as. heretofore agreed to be paid,” it was a charge upon the whole property. This claim was also allowed by the master.
The defendants excepted to the report for the allowance of these claims; and they also excepted to other parts of the report, but in the disposition made of the case, it becomes unnecessary to notice any other of the exceptions, than those first mentioned.
The Chancellor overruled all the exceptions, and confirmed the report; and the defendants now moved to reverse so much of his decree, as overruled the exceptions.
Petigru, for the motion.
Yeadon, contra.
Vide post, next case.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
The exceptions relating to the commissions of the receiver, and the arrears of complainant's annuity, have alone been insisted on in the, argument; and to these the judgment of the Court will be confined.
The rate of commissions allowed by law to a receiver, is necessarily arbitrary. In some instances, the commissions may prove to be more, and in others they will be less, than an adequate remuneration ; but even this is better than the uncertainty of suffering the rate of compensation to depend upon the discretion of the master. When, therefore, a receiver discharges the duty assigned to him, he is intitled to the usual commissions, although they may appear to be more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered. It is said, however, that Col. Cattell, the receiver in this case, did nothing ; and his own examination, in which he states that he would not take charge of one of the plantations, because the others were withheld, is relied on to prove it. But the fact is not disputed, that they were all managed by overseers appointed and employed by him, and that the crops were sold by factors of his own selection, and under his direction. It was not expected, that he would perform these services in person, and it does not follow, that the interests of those concerned were not promoted by this arrangement; and at any rate, he incurred the responsibility incident to these sub-agencies, and therefore, he is'intitled to his commissions. If any thing has been lost by his neglect, or the mismanagement of his agents, that would be the foundation of a demand upon him to make it good.
The claim of the complainant, to have the deficiency of the annnal allowance of $2,000, made up out of the capital of the estate, is clearly without any solid foundation. If it be referred to her contract with her husband, it would be sufficient to remark, that by her own statement, in the supplemental bill, it was a mere hiring from year to year, which either party might put an end to at pleasure. But if the agreement created a larger liability, it was one which the husband could not transfer to the defendants, his assignees, so as to bind them without their consent. And moreover, the order of the Chancellor superseded that agreement altogether, and puts the allowance on an entirely different footing. The order of September, 1825, directs that the receiver shall regularly pay over to Mrs. Price, out of the first proceeds of the crops, the sum of $2,000, per annum,, heretofore agreed to be paid to her, until the determination of the suit. The order of the Court of Appeals charges it upon the same fund; and even if the Court had possessed the power, yet there is no order charging the deficiency on any other, or creating any other liability. A plain, common sense view of the whole case, will lead to the same result. In justice, Mrs. Price was only intitled to receive a dividend of the income of these estates, in proportion to that part of them which was ultimately adjudged to belong to her; and that constituted but a small portion of the productive property, to wit, the slaves: but she has received the income of the whole, not only of her own, but of that to which the defendants are intitled ; and it is unreasonable, that she should have more. In this respect, therefore, the decree of the Circuit Court must be reversed.
The other grounds of appeal have not been insisted upon ; and the decree must, therefore, in all other particulars, be affirmed. Whatever costs may have been incurred, by reason of the application of Mrs. Price, to be paid her annuity out of the capital of the estate, must be paid by her; all other costs to be paid out of the funds of the estate, as heretofore ordered.
O'Neaix, J., and Harper, J., concurred.
Decree modified.
The case made at the former hearing of the preceding cause. Up0n the merits of the bill, has been reported in the Carolina Law Journal, p. 297, et seq.; but as the copies of that valuable publica. tion have become less generally accessible, than is desirable, and the case itself is frequently referred to, and is both important, and instructive, it has been deemed adviseable to subjoin a report of it in this place,