PABMBRS' LOAN ac TRUST CO. V. CENTRAL R. OF lOWA. €3 �fleVolved. upon the receiver, who was called npon to manage the repair, preservation, and operation of a large Une of railroad, and to disbarse in a period of 27J months the large sum of $1,700,000, and who was required to give bond in the sum of |50,000. Mr. Grin- nell's predeeessor received $5,000 per annum, and it is a well-known fact that a-much larger compensation is frequently paid for such services. Novertheless, the petitioner agreed to eerve for $8,000 peir amam, and we know of no suffieient reaeon for releasing him from thatagreement, and adding to his compensation, anless such reason can' be fonnd in the faot that his daties proved to be mord ajduous than he or the court expected, or that he performed duties for the Company in addition to those ordinarily required of a receivert �Some of the specifie claims of petitioner cannot be allowed, be- cause they are basad, not npon the performance of extra or unex- pected daties, bat. npon the groond that he disoharged the proper djities of his office with fidelity and economy, and in such a manner as to save money to the Company. Of this character is the olaim for an allowauce on account of the uniting, by order of petitioner, of the offices of auditor and cashier; also the disburaement of naoney in paymeut of debts due before his appointment, and some others of a similar character. However praiseworthy the petitioner's conduct may have been in respect of these matters, he did no more than his ^uty; no more than was required of him by his contract.
- . It does appear, however, from the master's report, and from the
record of the long and bitter contest in the foreclosure suit, that demands were made upon the receiver for reports and statements of accounts in the general office, requiriug a greater amount of time and labor on the part of the petitioner than was anticipated at the time of his appointment. We think also that it sufficiently appears that the condition of ihe road, and the state of the litigation con- cerning it, devolved some extra duty upon the receiver, and some work and travel at night, and outside of the usual hours of labor. For this extra service we think him fairly entitled to an allowance of $1,300. �It is conceded that during a period of 15 months petitioner dis- oharged the duties of receiver and superintendent, and thus saved the salary of one officiai. It is clear that this was extra service not contemplated by the original order of appointment. It is also clear that the sum claimed ($2,500) for this extra duty is less than would have been required to pay the salary of a competent superintendent. But it is insistedvthat the receiver violated his instructions by per- ��� �
