In a proceeding had in the circuit court of Cape Girardeau county, wherein Leo Doyle, trustee in certain five mortgages of the St. Louis, Cape Girardeau & Ft. Smith Railroad Company, was plaintiff and said Railroad Company and others were defendants — such proceedings were had that on January 7, 1899, a decree was rendered by that court foreclosing the mortgages and ordering, the sale of the railroad and all property described in the mortgages, for the payment of preferred claims against the railroad company and the bonds secured by the mortgages. By section 44 of the decree it was “ordered, adjudged and decreed that Robert G. Ranney be and he is hereby appointed commissioner to execute this decree and make the sale aforesaid and that he report to the court with all convenient speed his actions and doings in the premises. Said commissioner shall receive the sum of $500 in full for all his services in the premises.” On the second day of May, 1899, all the property of the railroad company was sold under the decree of foreclosure by Ranney the commissioner, for $425,000, to Albert S. Bard as trustee for the bondholders under the Mercantile Trust Company. Bard immediately conveyed all the property to the Southern Missouri and Arkansas Railroad Company, a Missouri corporation, founded by and in the interest of the Mercantile Trust
“Now comes Robert G. Ranney and moves the court to allow him additional compensation for his services’ as commissioner and for reason says that in addition to the selling of the property for which he was appointed, he has performed*512 additional and extra services in disbursing tbe funds in hands, and bas bad to go over and audit all claims paid by the purchasers of said road.
“R. G. Ranney, Commissioner.”
This motion was continued to tbe January term, 1900, of tbe court, when it was taken up, evidence was beard and tbe following order was made:
“On tbe sixth day of January, 1900, it being the sixth day of tbe regular January term, 1900, and during tbe sitting of said court said motion was taken up for bearing, and after bearing testimony of witnesses as to tbe additional and extra services rendered by Robert G. Ranney, as said commissioner, tbe court allowed said commissioner tbe sum of five hundred dollars for said extra services.”
To reverse this order tbe appeal was taken. Pending tbe appeal Leo Doyle died and the cause bas been revived in tbe name of Yan Erank, Doyle’s successor as trustee.
Section 40, on page 32 of tbe printed decree provides that “tbe purchaser or purchasers shall, as a part consideration of tbe purchase, take tbe property upon tbe express condition that be or they will pay off and satisfy any and all claims now pending and undetermined in this court, filed as interventions or otherwise in this suit,” etc. “And for the purpose of enforcing all tbe provisions of this decree jurisdiction of this cause is retained by this court with right to retake and resell and for tbe purpose of enforcing compliance of payment of demands, costs of expenses.”
Section 45, of tbe decree is as follows: “All questions not hereby disposed of, or determined, including tbe discharge of tbe receiver and tbe approving of bis accounts' are reserved for future adjudication, and tbe court hereby expressly reserves for further consideration and decree all other matters
Section 31, of the decree, on pages 24, 25 and 26, orders the sale of the property of the railroad company, the appointment of a commissioner to carry out the sale, the place of sale, the manner of advertising the sale.
Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 of the decree give specific directions as to manner, time and terms of the sale to be pursued by the commissioner.
Before and at the time of the foreclosure proceeding the railroad was operated by a receiver. The expense of operation by the receiver seems to have exceeded the income from the road, and there was a large amount of claims due to the employees of the road and to persons who had furnished supplies and material to the receiver for the road. These claims, after allowance by the referee, were given a preference by the decree and it was for the payment of these claims, that the commissioner was allowed the additional compensation of $500. It is not contended by the appellant that the allowance is disproportionate to the services rendered, but the contention is that the allowance at the May term, 1899, of $500 to the commissioner in full for his services was a final adjudication of the matter and that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to change or modify this portion of its judgment at a subsequent term. The compensation allowed the commissioner was fixed by the decree, at the time of his appointment, for specific services to be thereafter rendered. Eor these services, therefore, the compensation was adjudicated and this adjudication could not be modified by being increased or diminished at a subsequent term unless the court retained jurisdiction both of the commissioner and of the subject-matter of his compensation by some other provision found in the decree.
The judgment is affirmed.