121 Iowa 430 | Iowa | 1903
On October 24, 1901, the Stearns Paint Manufacturing Company, doing business at Des Moines, Iowa, brought an action, aided by attachment, against Comstock & McQuiston, retail dealers in paints and wall paper at Cedar Eapids, to recover the sum of $2,280 claimed to be due on account for goods sold to said defendants, and in said proceeding obtained the appointment of its own manager, George K. Gibson, as a receiver of the stock and book accounts of the defendants, which had been levied upon under the writ. The receiver took possession of the property on or about October 25, 1901. The inventory of the stock amounted to about’ $2,700, and the credits to about $6,800. Prom' these assets there was realized a total'of $5,945.94, out of which was paid for labor and other expenses $1,971.56. The first report of the receiver, dated January 25, 1902, indicates that the work of the receivership was then practically completed, ex--ept the disposition of a remnant of goods and accounts, for the sale of which authority was asked and granted. Thereafter the service of the receiver, as reported by him, consisted in selling the stock in lump for $1,025; the sale of equity in building for $280.76; and sundry small sales and collections, $120.62. These transactions were finally reported to the court February 26, 1902, showing a net balance in receiver’s hands of $3,971.38. Out of this sum the receiver asked for his personal compensation $375 per mouth for four months; compensation for bookkeeper, three months, at $100, $300; and for attorney’s fees, $300 —and that the remainder be ordered distributed pro rata among the creditors, of whom some twenty-seven had filed claims, to the amount of over $6,000. This report was approved, and the several allowances were made as asked by the receiver. Thereafter application was made on behalf of the creditors to set aside said allowances as excessive, and upon a hearing had thereon the allowance to
Appellee asserts that some of the creditors named in the appeal have accepted their pro rata shares under the order of distribution made by the district court. This is denied by the appellants, and no record is presented in support of the allegation. The motion for an affirmance without modification as to such creditors is denied.
Modified as above indicated, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed at the cost of the appellee.— Modified and aeeiemed.