I'EDERiL ltEpORTER, vol. 43. a'rehearing ct\nnot be allowed, after a decree is entQlle(l of After enrollment or entry of record, Or deCree cojllqnot, as it be disturbed or by appeal or a bill of review" Brown, v. .Aspden. 14 How. 25 j Olapp v. Thaxter, 7 2 Daniell, Ch. Pr. 1019, 1475, 1476. But equity rule 88 modin the federal courts .to some extent by providing that,,"N<?, fflhearing shall be grao;tl!d, after the term at which the final decree of the'court shall have been entered and recorded, iran appeal lies to the supreme
court. But if no appeal lies. the petition may be admitted at any time before the end of the next term of court, in the discretion of the court."

This rule was, in effect, held to be mandatory in Roemer v. Simon, 91 U. S. )49. Chief Justice WAITE said in that case, with reference to a sqit :and hence withip ,the first clause of the rule:' "TIle court beloVl':' grant a rehearing after the term at which the final decree waS 'rendered.' Equity Rule, 88." It the lapse ofseveralterms since the decrees in these cases were made and entered of record, the court has lost !C?,JZ;r.at.1t .. court, wlth,f!. ill ,theu favOJ:whlCb the court IS powerless, at this time, to disturb on a petition for rehearing. The pcti.tions for a rehearing must accordingly be denied, and the cases be taken frotn the docket. It is so .
,,\ f, .

llOtIND ti.SOtJTHCAROLINA Ry. Co. et al.
Court,

I!,. South, Ca'l'oZma.

August 4, 1890.)

. .

ATTORNEY'1i! hBs-RBOEIVEU-RAJIlROAD; MORTGAGB.

.Where the ,holder of second-mortgage I'ailroad bonds brings suit lor the appointment of s receiver, and a receiver is therefote appointed with the consent of all interested parties, and to the advantage of all, the services rendered by the com. plainsl),t's att,Qrneys, being for the common benefit. sllould be paid .for froJP.,the assets of the company. . '

.. InEquity. Mitchell'&:Smith, for complainant.: S. LYrd, for defendants. . SIMoNTON,JJ. , Before
I "

,PER CURIAM. This is anaprlication for. the payment of fees to the attorneys Of the 'complainant for -services in and about filing the bill, of's biIlwas filed bY' the and procuring' upon /lnd omission by holder of second-mortgage bonds;' the trustees,ofthe second take action in: fh l1fbehalf.. Upon the return Of the rule issued;'When)tbe bill was filed to show cause why ateceiver should not be appointed' for the South Carolina Railway Company; the trustees ofthefirst mortgage; avery'large

ofthe first-mortgage bonds,and the trustees and holders.r the income bOnds, came in,recognized the necessity lor a receiver, and acquiesced in the appointment of Mr. Chamberlain. The trustees of the second mortgage made no objection except to the right of the complainant to sue. It thus appears that all parties in interest agreed that the pursued by the complainant was for the good of all persons concerned in the property. When,ata subsequent period, it was proposed to sell the railway property, and wind up the receivership, all parties, trustees, and bondholders, the first mortgage, concurred in opposition to the proposed order for sale,and united in the opinion that it was for the benefit of the first-mortgage bondholders that the railway propertyremainin the hands of and be managed by the receiver. Up tothis time the practical result of the receivership is a reduction of expenses arid a, large increase in the earnings of the property. It thus 'appears that, the services rendered by the attorneys for the complainant were for the common benefitandthe.'adVatitagaof the fund in which'all the cred·' ther.eforebe compensated out ofthat itorsare-interested. flJrld.The .entire amount of this compensation We will not fix now. We prefer to follow the course suggested by JudgeBREwER in ,Gen· " trfll'l'.Co. 11f. Wabash,etc., Ry.Co., 23 Fed. Rep.:675, and setnpart it sum'ior',present purposes, to be supplemented ,in the .future, the amount to"h.e measured, by the results of the case. It. is: ordered that the receiverpay to Messrs. Mitehell & Smith,complainant's solicitors, $(),OOO" on account of professional services. ,
",1'

WITTERS f1. SOWLES

et Ill.

, (q-brcult (]OUh't,D. Vfl'I"/1WI'I.t. May Term,l890.)
LNA'l'tONAt. B.l:NXS'-:"PERSONAL LIABILITY OJ' DmECTOB_ExCESSIVE LOANB.

. Where the directors of a' national bank assent·to a loah, in excess of the limit scribed by Rev. st. U. s. 5 5200, and subeequently retire paper representing a pal\. oHhls loan; by charging it against an illegal dividend, declared when the bad paper reCkoned to make up an apparent surplus more than exceedlthe capital stock, the tJ;ansaction i,8 invalid,ood. for the amount of the paper thUS retired, the directors are' personally as by section 5289, for damages sustained in conSequence of exceSSlve loans. . " " ,
Ol!' ;MASTER-CORRECTION., . , , '.:

Where. the report of a master can be corrected from ,the facts that appear in the , case, aside from the evidence taken before him,lt should be done,·ana are-refer·; euce is unneces.sary. . " ' , , "

:, In Equity:_ . . . . .. ; Chester Witters and HfinrY ..4. Burt, for .,Albert .P. qr08!, and Willard Famngron,.foJ' ·liefendaJ;lts.

,

'J

:WHEELER,. ;r,,an This 4:lause has moneYJI pf the, . o,n the ,report:the· the; hea,rd' stating aCCollOt Qrth,e dethe orator is r:eceiyeNIQstby