Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/78

^4 7EDEBAL BEFOSTEB. �forming the duties of the general superintendent. We do not think «0. True, he was not expected to serve as superintendent, and he was instructed generally to continue the superintendent then em- ployed or employ another, in his discretion ; but a fair construction of the order does not warrant the conclusion that the court intended -to prohibit him from diseharging the duties of superintendent in addi- tion to those of the receivership. From the whale tenor of the letter of instruction it is evident that the court intended to and did give the receiver a large discretion in the administration of the affairs of the Company. We think the sum claimed under thia head should be allowed. We think, also, that the claim for services as attorney for the Company should be allowed, in so far as by such service the receiver sa ved the company expense. Upon looking into the report of the master, and the evidence, we conclude that Mr. Grinnell, by the service rendered as attorney, saved the payment by the company of at least 20 days' service in court of the regular attorney of the company, at $20 per day. We therefore allow this item, as claimed, in the sum of $390, �"A receiver iriay be entitled to allowances beyond hia salary for any ex- traordinary trouble or expense he may have been put to in the performance of his duties, or in bringing actions, or defending legal, proceedings which have been brought against him." Keirr on Eeceivers, 219. �AU this, however, is upon the assumption that the receiver hag been guilty of no such fraudulent conduct as ought to forfeit his' right to compensation. �We have already called attention to three items in the account ot the receiver which have been rejected by the master as unauthorized, and to the clause in the answer wherein it is alleged that by reason of these the receiver should not be allowed extra compensation. Con- cerning these items it is sufficient to say that they have never been allowed to the receiver; that they stand charged against him, to be accounted for on final settlement; and that there is no proof upon which it can be maintained that any fraud was intended by him with respect to either of them. AU that he did was perfectly consistent with an honest belief on his part that he was acting within his authority, and for the best interests of the company. But our atten- tion is invited to certain Other items in the receiver's accounts which have been passed by the master, and which are now charged in argu- ment — but not in the answer — as fraudulent, and of such charaoter as to deprive petitioner of extra compensation. �The first of these is an item of $1,757.45 for ties which belonged ��� �