Bennett v. Chapin
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion arising on the accounts of a receiver, • who, by an order made by consent, was directed to pay over and deliver all the money, property, and effects in his hands to certain of the parties. He had, accordingly, paid over the money collected, amounting to something more than twenty thousand dollars, and had transferred and delivered a large amount, nominally, of book accounts and other things in action.
Read the full summary
Motion arising on the accounts of a receiver, • who, by an order made by consent, was directed to pay over and deliver all the money, property, and effects in his hands to certain of the parties. He had, accordingly, paid over the money collected, amounting to something more than twenty thousand dollars, and had transferred and delivered a large amount, nominally, of book accounts and other things in action. He claimed commissions on the money received and paid, as stated in the opinion of Mason, J. The parties contested his claim as made, and also a charge for a payment to counsel. The facts…
1Opinion of the Court
Mason, J. (At chambers.)
The order in this case limited the compensation of the receiver to a commission, such as is allowed to executors and administrators, and the well settled construction of the statute on the subject of the commission of *674executors and administrators is to allow five per cent, for receiving and disbursing the first thousand dollars, two and a half per cent, upon the next four thousand, and one per cent, for the residue. The receiver has, however, retained five per cent, on all sums of $1,000 and from two to four per cent, on all sums of $2,000 and upwards-, and it is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re Bank of NiagaraNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Ryckman v. ParkinsNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re HulbertNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1882
- People v. Brooklyn BankNew York Supreme Court · 1909
- People v. Brooklyn BankNew York Supreme Court · 1909
- People v. Mutual Benefit AssociatesNew York Supreme Court · 1886