HUNKEB V. BING. 283 �The items charged for payments to the defendant's attorney must abide bythe same rule. 80 far as they depended upon or related to the void assignment, they must be disallowed. So far as they were expenses necessarily incurred for the preservation of the property or collection of the debts, they should be allowed to an amount which is roasonable and just. �The charges as presented cannot, therefore, be allowed. They are intwo items — one, "January 17, 1878, $1,000;" and one, "March 11, $1,000." Both the items paid were evidently paid upon the basis of an assignment assumed to be valid under the state law and voidable only in bankruptcy. The first was paid but 15 days after the assign- ment was made, immediately after the defective schedules were filed, and would seem to have been paid quite as much as a retainer for future services under the assignment, as for any services abeady ren- dered, as the attorney values his services in connection with the schedules at $150 only. The second item was paid on the day the petition in bankruptcy was filed, of which it is shown that the re- spondent had knowledge at the time. No bill of itemized charges was rendered by the attorney, and none was exhibited before the master. The attorney testified to numerous matters upon which he was consulted, and described what he did, in general terms, without any specification of the value of his different services; and the mas- ter bas allowed the charges in gross. The adjudication that the assignment was void under the state law was not made until some two months after the date of the master's report ; and this adjudica- tion makes it impossible to take into consideration quite a number of the matters specified by the attorney in his testimony as proper sub- jects of charge as against the plaintiff, which might possibly have been otherwise allowed. �Disallowing, therefore, all charges solely depending upon or refer- ring to the void assignment or its execution under the state law, and all advice for the defendant's individual benefit, and admitting those charges only which pertain to the preservation or collection of the assets and to the benefit of the general creditors, the following sub- jects of claim specified in the testimony should be excluded, viz. : CounseFs examination of the assignment, and advice in relation to the acceptance of it, and instructions as to the defendant's duties ind responsibilities under it; preparing and filing schedules and advice concerning the same ; "matters conneeted with the estate" not otherwise defined ; advertising for claims and order of state court therefor; order to supplement schedules; "assisting" in the appoint- ��� �
