Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/76

 62. FBDEBAL BBPOSXKB. �note cannot !?« collected, and is therefore by the master charged back to the receiver. (S) An item of about $190i growing out of a contractfor water sup- ply at Grinnell. �The petitioner paid |400 in advance to certain parties who agreed to furnish such water snpply, but failed to keep their coatract, where- Tipon petitioner paid baek to the present receiver the sum of $210, leaving the above balance unsettled. Upon these faote Mr. Grin- nell petitions the court toincrease his compensation to $5,000 per annum. This is asked more specifically upon the grounds following, to-wit: �(1) For performing double service as receiver and general superintendent for a period of 15 months. For thia the sum of $2,500 is claimed. (2) For saving efEected by joiping the offices of auditor and cashier. For this $1,340 is claimed; (4) On account of duties and responsibilities not anticipated in accepting the oflace, growing out of debts amounting to $280,000 previously contracted. On this sum half of 1 per cent, is claimed, amounting to $1,400. �The allowance isfurther urged upon the ground of extra labof, care, and responsibility occasioned by the bad condition of the road, the necessity for new work, and ex^raordinary expenditurea. �The complainant, in its answer to the receiver's petition, insista : �(1) That the receiver had no right, under this order of the court, to unite the offices of receiver and superintendent; (2) that the petitioner was bound to perform the duties performed by him — if at all — without extra compensa- tion ; (3) it was petitioner's duty to disburse the money in payment of debts contracted by his predecessor ; (4) the trusts and responsibilities imposad upon the petitioner were sueh only as usually attend upon such avocations, �The answer further set forth the facts in relation to the three unsettled items in the account of the petitioner as receiver, above mentioned, and avers that said payments were unauthorized, and said Grinnell should accoant to thia court for and pay over the amount of said items to his successor, and should be "disallowed any additional compensation for any cause or under any pretext," �It is further insisted in argument, but not set forth in any pleading, that the petitioner's claims should be rejected on account of certain transactions by him as receiver, which will be particularly stated hereafter. We will briefly bonsider two questions : �(1) Whether, assumiug that the receiver bas faithfully administered his trust without intentional error or fraud on his part, he is entitled to an addi- tional allowance, and if so, how much? (2) Whether by hia conduct in office he has justly forfeited any claim to such additional allowance? �We are clearly of the opinion that the salary originally fixed waa inadequate, considering the nature of the duties and responsibilities it ��� �