Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Oriental Bank, Appellant. Carnegie Trust Company and Henry Schneider, Temporary Receivers of the Oriental Bank, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-01-08
Citations: 129 A.D. 865
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Oriental Bank, Appellant. Carnegie Trust Company and Henry Schneider, Temporary Receivers of the Oriental Bank, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 865–866

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. The Oriental Bank, Appellant. Carnegie Trust Company and Henry Schneider, Temporary Receivers of the Oriental Bank, Respondents.
First Department,
January 8, 1909.
Receivers — compensation — order of appointment vacated — form of order of reference.
It is the practice of the Supreme Court before passing upon the accounts of receivers to submit them to a referee where large sums must be accounted for.
The fact that an order appointing receivers has been vacated does not establish that they are not entitled to compensation as a matter of law, if the order was not vacated for lack of jurisdiction but merely because improvidentiy granted.
Where an order appointing receivers has been vacated and they apply for fees and commissions it should be ordered that their accounts and the objections thereto be referred, and that the referee report thereon with an opinion covering-the question of the receivers' right to compensation and the amount thereof.
Appeal by the defendant, The Oriental Bank, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 24th day of April, 1908, as amended ntmo fro tuno by an order entered on the 4th day of May, 1908, referring to a referee all questions in connection with the application of the temporary receivers of the defendant for allowance of their fees, commissions and disbursements.
Charles K. Beekman, for the appellant.
John L. Wells, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
It accords with the long-established practice of the court to subject the accounts of receivers to the scrutiny of a referee before passing upon them when, as in the present case, large sums have to be accounted for. The questions sought to be raised by the exceptions can best be disposed of on the coming in of that report. It cannot he said now, as matter of law, that the receivers are entitled to no compensation because the order appointing them was vacated. That vacation did not proceed upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to appoint receivers ex parte, but upon the ground that, having such jurisdiction, it was improvidently exercised. When all the facts are before the court it can be determined what allowance, if any, should be made to the receivers for their compensation and expenses. The order is not drawn in the usual form and should be modified so as to provide that the accounts of the receivers and the objections thereto be referred to the referee named in the order appealed from, and that lie report thereon with bis opinion, as well as upon the question as to what compensation and expense, if any, should be allowed to the receivers, and as so modified will be affirmed, without costs in this court.
Present — Ingraham, Lauqhlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ.
Order modified as directed in opinion an'd as modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.