¶1In regard to the employment of an auctioneer, I entirely agree with the learned judge of the Western district of Texas in Re Pegues [Case No. 10,907], where he says: “the law contemplates that the assignee shall himself sell the property of the estate. There may be cases in which it would be proper to employ an auctioneer, but the necessity for so doing should be first shown to the court, and leave obtained.” At all events, the as-signee having taken the responsibility upon himself to employ an auctioneer he must now make the necessity of such aid, and the reasonableness of the amount paid therefor, to appear, before he can have that charge allowed.
23 F. Cas. 543
In re Sweet
U.S. District Court
Decided July 1, 1874
U.S. District Court · decided 1874-07-01
<p>Case No. 13,688.</p> <p>Bankruptcy — Assignee’s Account — Auctioneer’s Charges — Necessity for Services of Auctioneer.</p> <p>The law contemplates that the assignee himself shall sell the property of the bankrupt. Where an auctioneer is employed the assignee-must show affirmatively the necessity for such employment, or the auctioneer’s charges will not be allowed him by the court in his final account.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1989
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →