Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/401

 3S6 FEDBBAii BEFOBTEB. �would have practically received nothihg. The supreme court of the United States, under the general orders in bankruptoy, especially Nos. 3 and 39, tried to restrict these matters, so far as a petitioning cred- iter was concerned, to the ordinary ' taxable, DOsts in the courts, as stated in the general order, as "in cases of equity." The practice of the district courts had been otherwise. They held that where some creditera proceeded against an estate, and spent money for the bene- fit of the creditors generally, the general fund ought to be amenable for the resuit, inasmuch as all the creditors would share in the bene- fits of the controversy. But the supreme court of the United States, under the act of 1875, concluded to stop that. The exceptions as to thait allowai^ce by the register will, therefore,.be sustained, except as to the sum of $20, which is the taxable fee. �Now, as to the other matter, what is properly allowable? It seems that the assignee in this caae-^the original assignee and his succes- sor, the original assignee having resigned — made an agreement with the attomeys in this matter whereby they might pursue this litiga- tion, and recover, if possible, the amounts in dispute ; they to receive, if Buccessful, such sum as the court might deem fair compensation for them. No sum was specifled. Litigation ensued. The attorneys had to beat certain expenses in the northern district of New York, and had to go baokward and forward in the investigation of the same. The resuit was that they recovered the sum of seventeen thousand and odd dollars in one suit, and in another direction, where there was less labor and trouble, they recovered the sum of $5,300, Now, what is a fair compensation under the circumatances ? We have the opinions of a great many of the attorneys of the bar with regard to such matters. The register reports that he thinks this court ought to follow the precedent of the bar, which I think is more honored in the breach than in the observance. I think that the beat interests as well as the ethics of the profession require that attorneys shall not do that which was denounced by the common law — speculate in the trial of causes. I have no sympathy for any rule which permits such practice. The parties in the case, or rather the assignee, should have applied to the court for permission to enter into a con- tract. Nothing of the kind was done. The services, however, have been performed and the money recovered. The party objecting to the allowanoe in this matter occupies a peculiar relation. I am sorry his attorney is not here. Nearly all the funds of this bankrupt estate would have been absorbed through the instrumentality of thia particular party. Being pursued in the United States courts by the ��� �