Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/86

 72 FEDERAL ESÇOETER, �Leeoh, Assignee, etc., ». Kay. {Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. , 1880.) �1. Cost8-»-Clebk'8 CoMMissioTiTs. — The commission of 1 per ccntum �allowed to the clerk for reoeiving, keeping, and paying out moneys, in pursuance of any statuts or order of court, by Rcv. St. § 828, can- not be claimed unless the money passes through his hands either actually or constructively. �2. Bankuuptct — CosTS — Clkkk'8 Commissions — Cash dt .Iudgmbkt. — �Where an assignee in bankruptcy sold real estate coming into hia hands, and subsequently filed a bill in equity in the circuit court to settleconflicting claima to the property, there is no atatute requiring him to pay the proceeds of sale into the registry of the court; and as there was no order of court requiring him in this case to do so, the clerk cannot charge commissions onthe f und. �In Equity. Matter of the elerk's costs. �I. R. Puryear, for himself. �I. W, Bloomfield and Henry Burnett, for plaintiff. �Hammond, D. J., (silting hy designation.) This was a bill in equity to settle a controversy between the creditors of differ- ent firms, to which the bankrupts belonged, as to the distri- tion of the assets. It is in the nature of a bill of interpleader by the assignee, though, perhaps, not technically such, to settle , questions of title to certain property in his possession, claimed as assets by him, which claim was disputed by creditors de- manding the property as assets of a firm not bankrupt. By the decree it was adjudged that the property belonged to the bankrupt firm, and should be distributed equally among ail the creditors of that firm. The assignee had, as the proceeds of the sale made by him, the sum of $9,000, and the clerk insists that it was constructively in the registry of the court; that he is entitled to the commission of 1 per eentum allowed him by section 828 of the Kevised Statutes, and he bas so taxed it in his fee bill. �The assignee excepts to this on the ground that the money belonged to him as assignee, and was never in the registry as a fact, nor could it properly belong there. Undoubtedly, in a proceeding like this, whether one of the parties be an assignee ����