McAnson v. Martin
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal, by a receiver from an order denying him compensation and attorney fees out of the receivership fund of the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in tliis court at the October term, 1898.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Seaes
That the receiver was improperly appointed, has been already adjudicated by this court. Martin v. Sexton, 72 Ill. App. 395.
It has been repeatedly held that where a receiver has been improperly appointed and the order appointing is vacated or reversed, the receiver should not be permitted to reduce the assets by withholding any part thereof for compensation to himself or for fees of his attorney. The latest of these decisions is Highley v. Deane, 168 Ill. 266.
But it is contended by counsel for appellant that no such determination of the matter of the receiver’s compensation and his attorney’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Highley v. DeaneIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Myres v. FrankenthalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
- Einstein v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894
- Young v. RutanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1897
- Martin v. SextonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Feldman v. Illinois State Pawners Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois · 1935