Case Name: CARROLL ET AL. v. CASH MILLS ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-04-13
Citations: 123 S.C. 506
Docket Number: 11192
Parties: CARROLL ET AL. v. CASH MILLS ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Justice Cothran not participating.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
11192
CARROLL ET AL. v. CASH MILLS ET AL.
(117 S. E., 184)
Receivers—Allowances to Receiver and His Attorneys • Held Not Abuse op Circuit Judge’s Discretion.—In an insolvency proceeding, in which the insolvent’s mills were sold for $300,000 cash, allowance of $7,500 to receiver, $6,000 to attorneys for receiver, and $1,500 to assistant attorneys for receiver, held not an abuse of circuit Judge’s discretion.
Before Sease, J., Cherokee, July, 1922.
Affirmed.
Action by J. A. Carroll et al. against the Cash Mills et al. From an order fixing compensation of a receiver and his attorneys, plaintiffs appeal.
Messrs. Martin & Blythe and D. W. Robinson, for appellants,
cite: Standdtrd for fixing .fees: 9 A. R. R., 237. Indiscretion of Court, subject to review on appeal: 113 S. E., 315; 117 S. C., 7; 103 S. C., 299; 94 S. C„ 383; 84 S. C., 458; 104 S. C., 396; 9 A. R. R., 240.
Messrs. Butler & Hall, for the receiver-respondent,
cite: Pees of receiver and attorneys discretionary: 33 R. Ed., 568.
Messrs. Dobson & Vassy, for respondents,
cite: - Allowance of fees is incidental to administration of .estate: 85 S. C., 71; 13 S. C., 445; 21 S. C., 162; 81 S. C., 495; 23 R. C. R„ 148.
April 13, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This is an appeal from an order, made by Judge Sease, fixing the compensation of W. C. Hamrick, as receiver of the Cash Mills, at $7,500.00; the fee of Messrs. Butler & Hall, attorneys for the receiver, of $6,000.00; and the fee of Messrs. Dobson & Vassy, assistant attorneys for the receiver, of $1,500.00.
The Cash Mills was insolvent, and Mr. Hamrick was appointed receiver. The Cash Mills was sold for $300,000.00 cash. There is but one question in the case, and that is as to the amount of these allowances. The amount is within the discretion of the Circuit Judge, and it does not appear that Judge Sease abused his discretion.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Cothran not participating.