Case Name: Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co. and another
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1884-05-12
Citations: 20 F. 351
Docket Number: 
Parties: Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co. and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 20
Pages: 351–352

Head Matter:
Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co. and another.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.
May 12, 1884.)
ItKOKTVJ RS — COMPENSATION FOB SERVICES OB LEGAL AimSF.lt, RENDERED BEFORE AND AFTER RECEIVER'S ANOINTMENT — AGAINST WlIAT FUNDS CHARGEABLE.
In a suit brought by A. against B. and 0., two railroad companies, E. acted as a tornoy for the defendants. After services had been rendered by E., but befe -e the case was disposed of, F. was appointed receiver of C. in a foreclosure suit 0. was appointed F.’s legal advisor, and continued to act in the case-brm ght by A. until it was disposed of, and also rendered other legal services. Upe i an application by IS. for compensation for said services, held—
(1 That the fee allowed for services rendered after F.’s appointment was cha; gcablc against F., and should be paid out of the funds in his hands.
(2 That the compensation allowed for services rendered in A.’s case before P. v as appointed, was a charge against B. and 0., and was payable out of whf- mver surplus might remain in the hands of the receiver after the lien, denial is, and expenses were paid.
App ication by Attorneys for a Receiver for compensation for legal service j, part of which were rendered before and part after the receiver vas appointed.

Opinion:
Tre. t, J.
This is an application by Smith & Harrison for com-pensa! on for legal services. When the receiver was appointed there was a case pending of Fogg v. The Defendant et al. The court though t that the receiver should defend said case in the interest of all cor cerned, and authorized him so to do. Por all tho services theretc rore and subsequently rendered, the amount claimed, to-wit., $i,00( , may not be excessive. Shall the whole of said amount he charge .1 against the funds in the hands of the receiver, or only such portioi thereof as resulted from the defense by him as authorized by the coi rt ? The ordinary course of such proceedings, under the decree as ron bred, would be a charge solely against the two corporations, defend mts, to abide the final outcome of the estate. It seems, therefore, e poitable that the receiver be ordered to pay to the petitioners, the su n of $500; the other $500 claimed to be charged against whatever s irplus may come to the hands of the receiver after the lien, demar ds, and expenses have been discharged.
As o the other demands for which services are claimed, the same. being chargeable against the receiver directly, the only question is as to what should be properly allowed therefor. Under some circumstances it might appear that the amount is moderate; but, in the interests of all concerned, the court thinks that $200 is ample.
The court, therefore, orders the receiver to pay to the petitioners, Smith & Harrison, the sum of $700, and that there be assessed against the defendant railroads the sum of $500; the latter sum to abide the final determination of the case.