rather than a point contractor type starter. This minimizes slippage and will permit smooth starts thereby minimizing heat at the drive.

13. The belt system has the following devices which will automatically shut down or indicate impending trouble: slip switches; belt drift at the head and tail pirces (sic); belt pierce switch; a chute plug; a motor heat; a thermal magnetic overload switch in the motor; a belt slippage switch and a motor bearing temperature increase.

14. Signal lights monitoring these devices are displayed on a panel which is viewed by the TV

cameras.

15. The transfer points on the main belt are monitored on a closed circuit TV system.

16. The TV system is viewed by a trained man in a control room who can stop the entire belt by use of a switch.

17. The belt will not be operated unless the TV system is in operation or in cases of an emergency where a TV camera is not functioning, a man with suitable communication to the control room operation will be located at such drive or transfer point in lieu of the TV camera until the TV camera is repaired.

18. After the belt drive system is stopped following a production shift each belt drive area will be (a) visually inspected for fire within four hours after shutdown or (b) the operation will be attending the television detection control panel system for a four-hour period following shutdown or (c) any

equivalent system approved by the Bureau.

19. The stopping of the belt creates a silence in the mine which serves as an "audible" warning system to men in the mine.

20. A communications system is installed and maintained so that suitable communication is maintained with miners.

21. Water is put on the belt primarily for dust control but it does also create a wet belt.

22. Firefighting equipment is located so that miners can transport it and attack a fire at an affected belt drive within fifteen (15) minutes after being notified of a fire.

23. The mine has a large source of water available from a large dam which is fed by a stream. City water is also fed into the mine. The main water lines are located in the haulage ways with water tapoff lines leading directly to the belt drives.

24. Firehoses capable of delivering a minimum of 50 gallons of water per minute at 50 psi to the belt drive equipment will be provided within sixty (60) days of date of order of the board or as further extended by the Bureau of Mines. 25. The fireplugs have constant water to the valves and are tested at regular intervals.

26. At least 500 feet of hose will be at each belt drive.

27. The ventilation system will be maintained so that persons fighting fires will be able to travel and operate in intake air during fire control activities.

28. There are four specially

equipped fire trains strategically located within the mine so that at least two and possibly four trains can approach a fire in intake air.

29. A locomotive is attached to each fire train. The locomotives are tested weekly.

30. The fire trains consist of the

following: a car with approximately eight tons of rock-dust; a car with various brattice, fire extinguisher, tools, etc.; a water tank with a 1,200-gallon capacity and high pressure pump capable of delivering 50 gallons of water at 50 psi. A special foam generator equipment is available.

31. High pressure rock-dusting machines with attached hose are available in the working areas of the mine and can be transported to any fire location.

32. At least one portable ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher is located at every belt drive.

33. There is a more than the required of 240 lbs. of rock-dust located at each belt drive.

34. There are two completely equipped well-trained mine rescue teams of 16 people within the Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation mine complex in this area, of which Gateway mine is a part, who train at least one day each month.

35. All Assistant Mine Foreman are trained in the use of fire suppression equipment.

36. There is a planned, well-publicized and posted procedure for methods of fighting fires and spe

cific lines of authority to direct the fighting of a fire.

37. There are several fire companies located within five (5) miles of the mine and their equipment is available.

38. The mine is located in an area with seven or eight other mines and equipment and well-trained men

from these mines are available to fight fires.

39. Ventilation doors are installed to control the air flow over the belt drives in case of a fire.

40. Power is sectionalized so that it can be cut off in any area of the mine and still permit fire trains to get to the fire location.

41. The men in the mine walk section escapeways once a month.

42. Gateway Mine was used as an example of an excellent fire fighting program by the United States Bureau of Mines in a recent publication #8631.

43. The United Mine Workers of America did not appear at the hearing to object to this Petition for

Modification.

44. This Agreement applies only to the Gateway Mine of Gateway Coal Company. This Agreement shall continue in effect until such time as the management of Gateway Mine determines in its discretion that it shall no longer operate in whole or in part in accordance with the terms of this Stipulation. and Modification Order and that it will, instead, operate in accordance

OPINION BY MR. McKEE

INTERIOR BOARD OF

INDIAN APPEALS

This matter is before this Board for the second time. This appeal is from the decision issued by Judge Curran, July 21, 1972, denying the petition of Houston Bus Hill and Thurman S. Hurst for rehearing. The Board's first decision, Estate of William Cecil Robedeaux, 1 IBIA 106, 78 I.D. 234 (1971) disposed of a number of issues, but remanded the single issue of the appellants' entitlement to and the amount of attorney's fees, if any, for further hearing and decision. The appellants' claim was for a total of $8,250, and after the remand-hearing Judge Curran allowed $1,500 to which appellants object.

The fact situation is largely set out in the Board's first decision. For the purposes of this decision the following summary is sufficient:

1) The decedent was married at his death; 2) he died December 16, 1968, leaving a will dated March 2, 1967, which has received a Departmental final approval; 3) in 1957, eleven years prior to decedent's death, a son, Willis Robedeaux was appointed by an Oklahoma court as guardian of his father's estate to reIceive and disburse the income derived almost exclusively from Indian trust property; 4) during the guardianship a divorce action was initiated in the decedent's own name, and his ability to prosecute the suit in spite of the apparent disability of the guardianship was

affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in State ex rel. Robedeaux v. Johnson, Okla. 418 P.2d 337 (September 13, 1966); 5) Mr. Hill was the sole attorney in the guardianship matter and Mr. Hurst was co-counsel in the divorce proceedings; 6) on April 15, 1966, the need for the guardianship ended upon the Indian Bureau's decision to reassert full control of the trust estate income; 7) according to the final accounting filed in the guardianship on April 19, 1966, Mr. Hill had received a total of $700 as fees, the last installment having been paid on that date; 8) neither the final accounting nor the amended final accounting was ever approved by the county court since the objections and other pleadings filed by the wife are not disposed of; 9) Mr. Hill did perform additional services in the guardianship, and in this probate is claiming an additional fee of $1,500 of which he has been awarded $300 by Judge Curran; 10) the county court of Oklahoma County issued no orders authorizing the employment of Mr. Hill as attorney for the guardian or the institution of the divorce action; 11) no petition to fix fees was filed in either the county court or the district court; 12) no fees were advanced or paid during the course of the divorce action, and although the decision in State v. Johnson, supra, was issued September 13, 1966, the divorce had not been brought to trial on its merits prior to decedent's death on December 16, 1968; and 13) in this probate Mr. Hall and Mr.

Hurst are claiming fees for services in the divorce action in the amount of $6,250 of which they have been awarded $1,300 by Judge Curran.

In support of their claim for fees, the appellants attempt to rely upon a copy of a contract of employment of Mr. Hill only, the original of which appellants assert is lost, and which the son denies approving in any capacity. In paragraph 4 of the stipulation made part of the record of the hearing held on May 10, 1972, after remand, the strongest statement Mr. Hill could make was, ***that to the best of his knowledge and belief the decedent * * * signed and executed the [original of] attached 'contract and power of attorney' marked Exhibit 'C'***.” No one has testified the decedent actually signed the original, and the copy bears the signature of Mr. Hill only.

That part of the contract upon which the appellants rely is the provision “*** I hereby agree to pay you a fair and reasonable attorneys fee, based upon quantum merit (sic) ***." In Black's Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed.) "quantum meruit" is defined, "as much as he deserved."

to which the attorney (the same Mr. Hill as is here involved) was entitled and allowed $1,000 of the $9,456.33 claimed. The regulations then in effect, 25 CFR 15.26, and those currently in effect, 43 CFR 4.281, include substantially the same provisions,

* In determining attorney fees, consideration shall be given to the fact that the property of the decedent is restricted or held in trust and that it is the duty of the Department to protect the rights of all parties in interest. This provision brings upon us the application of the doctrine of "quantum meruit" above quoted which is correlated with "reasonableness.'

Judge Murrah wrote in the decision in United States v. Anglin & Stevenson et al., 145 F. 2d 622, 630 (10th Cir. 1944):

it is well settled that in cases of this kind the allowance of attorneys' fees is within the judicial discretion of the trial judge, who has close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered.

It is well stated by the court in Kimball v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Douglas County, 391 P.2d 205, 64 Wash. 2d. 252 (1964):

Canon of Professional Ethics 12, RCW Vol. O, *** describes the determinants upon which reasonableness of the fee may be assessed. Such factors as the time and labor required, difficulty and complexity of the problems encountered, the amount, size and benefits to accrue from the controversy, the experience of the lawyers, and the customary charges of the bar for similar services-together with the other considerations mentioned-all are strong, though not con