The opinion of the court was delivered by: BYERS
This matter is before the Court on objection to a Referee's report awarding an attorney's fee to the attorney for the trustee, in the sum of $ 4750, not as to the amount, but because another attorney, who files the objection, conceives himself to be entitled to 30% thereof as a so-called 'forwarding fee'. The Referee found against him.
The report dated December 16, 1949, was filed three days later, and would have been passed upon by the Court long since but for later proceedings which were in effect a rehearing of the matter before the Referee, of which the Court was apprised; it was deemed expedient, though irregular according to established practice, to withhold action on the first report until the coming in of a supplemental report based upon the rehearing and reconsideration of the application for recognition of the so-called 'forwarding fee'. That report, dated March 21, 1950, was filed two days later, and again rejects the claim for a portion of the allowance in question.
The decision of the Referee is correct, and is hereby confirmed.
The only subject to which allusion will be made is the assertion that the attorney who brought about the hiring of the attorney for petitioning creditors of one who eventually became the attorney for the trustee, became entitled to that which he now claims by reason of the following note written to and received by him:
'320 Broadway 'New York 7, N.Y. 'January 8th, 1944
'Pursuant to my arrangement with you you are to receive 30% of all fees paid to me in the matter of David Hochreich; of course, disbursements are not included.
'Very sincerely, '(sgd) Archibald Palmer '(Archie to you)'
The argument is that '30% of all fees paid to me in the matter of Hochreich', etc., necessarily includes the allowance made ...