the issues joined by the receiver's final report and petition, and the answer of the Trust Company. In conformity with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals the Circuit Court gave personal judgment against that company for $36,207.57, as the amount due the receiver. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chapman, 145 Fed. Rep. 820.

We are of opinion that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Trust Company was liable for the deficiency found to exist. No such liability could arise from the simple fact that it was on plaintiff's motion that a receiver was appointed to take charge of the property pending the litigation. The motion for a receiver was to the end that the property might be cared for and preserved for all who had or might have an interest in the proceeds of its 'sale. The circumstances seemed to have justified the motion, but whether a receiver should have been appointed or not was in the sound discretion of the court. Immediately upon such appointment and after the qualification of the receiver, the property passed into the custody of the law, and thenceforward its administration was wholly under the control of the court by its officer or creature, the receiver. In Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, 331, it was said: "A receiver is an indifferent person between parties, appointed by the court to receive the rents, issues or profits of land, or other thing in question in this court, pending the suit, where

of the property and its probable outcome than the court. Indeed, it is not easy to see how the court can be properly expected to know anything about it. The appointment of a Receiver, if made at all, is usually made at the request of the complainant-occasionally, as in the case at bar, with the consent of the defendant. If the complainant was not willing to pay the expenses of the receivership it asked for, in the event of the msufficiency of the property to do so, it should not have asked the court to make the appointment, incur the liabilities, and pledge its faith to their payment. It was the duty of the complainant to keep informed in respect to the progress of the receivership, the property, and its probable outcome, and whenever it became unwilling to further stand good for any deficiency, to ask the court to bring to an end the business it undertook and was conducting on complainant's petition."

it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party should do it. Wyatt's Prac. Reg. 355. He is an officer of the court; his appointment is provisional. He is appointed in behalf of all parties, and not of the complainant or of the defendant only. He is appointed for the benefit of all parties who may establish rights in the cause. The money in his hands is in custodia legis for whoever can make out a title to it. Delany v. Mansfield, 1 Hogan, 234. It is the court itself which has the care of the property in dispute. The receiver is but the creature of the court; he has no powers except such as are conferred upon him by the order of his appointment and the course and practice of the court. Verplanck v. Mercantile Insurance Company, 2 Paige, C. R. 452." In Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 479, the court said: "When a court exercising jurisdiction in equity appoints a receiver of all the property of a corporation, the court assumes the administration of the estate; the possession of the receiver is the possession of the court; and the court itself holds and administers the estate, through the receiver as its officer, for the benefit of those whom the court shall ultimately adjudge to be entitled to it," citing Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52, 65; Peal y. Phipps, 14 How. 368, 374; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322, 331; Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223; Thompson v. Phenix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287, 297. Ought the receiver, in this case, to have been authorized to burden the property with indebtedness on account of money borrowed or on account of certificates which should become a first lien? Ought some limit have been put on expenses of that kind? These were matters to be determined by the court in the light of all the circumstances. It was for the court to say whether the Canal and Irrigation Company should be kept on its feet by moneys borrowed or obtained, under its orders, by the receiver. The wishes of the parties could not control as to such matters. Indeed they need not in strictness have been consulted as to what should be done from time to time in the management of the property. If the situation was such as to render it uncertain or doubtful whether the property

would ultimately bring, at a sale, enough to meet the expense incurred in connection with its management, the court might well have declined to permit its receiver to issue certificates or to borrow any money on the property as security for its payment. So, if the condition and apparent prospects of the property made such a course proper, the court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion and looking to the interests of all who might be affected by its action, could, at the outset, have made it a condition of the appointment of a receiver that the plaintiff and those whom it represented should be liable for any deficiency in the funds required for the expenses of the receivership; or it might have made it a condition of any order authorizing receiver's certificates or the borrowing of money, that the plaintiff, or those whom it represented, should make good any deficiency that might be disclosed after applying the proceeds of the sale according to the rights of parties. Still further, the court-if it had been proper, under all the circumstances, to pursue such a course-could have refused to operate the canals in question at all and required the parties to proceed to a final decree of foreclosure and sale at the earliest practicable moment. But none of these things were done. Under the responsibility imposed upon it by law, the court determined to carry on the business of the Canal and Irrigation Company for a time; and, under the same responsibility, it authorized the receiver to borrow money, issue receiver's certificates, and incur expenses, without any security for indebtedness incurred in this way, except the property or the fund in the control of the court, and the good faith, discretion and care of the court in its administration. No other security. seems to have been contemplated by the court or the receiver or any party to the cause. No hint or warning was given, in the progress of the cause, that the absent trustee was to be liable in the event that the property or fund under the control of the court proved insufficient to meet the expenses of the receivership. The Trust Company, it is true, invoked the jurisdiction of the court by bringing this suit for foreclosure and sale and

making a motion for the appointment of a receiver to hold and manage the property pendente lite. That, surely, the Trust Company had the right to do, but it did not thereby make itself ultimately liable for money borrowed and receiver's certificates issued by order of the court. The one person who was in a position to inform the court from time to time of the condition and probable value of the property, and of what was or what seemed to be necessary in order to preserve it for the parties interested in it, was its officer and representative, the receiver. It was at his instance and because of his report of the condition and needs of the property, that money was borrowed and certificates issued in order that expenses incurred in the administration of the property might be met. To hold the Trust Company liable for indebtedness thus created would be most inequitable, and would not, we think, be in accord with sound principle.

It is true that cases are cited in which the party bringing a suit, in which a receiver is appointed, has been held liable for expenses incurred by the receiver in excess of the proceeds arising from the sale of the property. But in most, if not in all, of those cases the circumstances were peculiar and were such as to make it right and equitable, in the opinion of the court, that that should be done. As, for instance, in Ephraim v. Pacific Bank, 129 California, 589, 592, in which arose a question as to the party to whom a receiver should look for reimbursement or payment of his expenses, the court recognized the fact that the general rule that the compensation of a receiver was a charge upon the fund in his hands did not apply without qualification to every case, and said: "If he [the receiver] has taken property into his custody under an irregular, unauthorized appointment, he must look for his compensation to the parties at whose instance he was appointed, and the same rule applies if the property of which he takes possession is determined to belong to persons who are not parties to the action, and is taken from his possession by paramount authority. As to such property his appointment as receiver was

unauthorized and conferred upon him no right to charge it with any expenses." In Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 74 Minnesota, 264, 267, the Supreme Court of Minnesota said: "The second proposition is that, a receiver being an officer of the court, subject to its control, and not to that of the party asking for his appointment, his fees and expenses are chargeable solely against the fund which comes into his hands as receiver. The parties to the action are not personally liable therefor, unless they have given a bond or other contract to pay them as a condition of the appointment or continuance of the receiver. This may be conceded to be correct as a general rule, but there are cases where the court will, if the fund in court be insufficient to give the receiver reasonable compensation and indemnity, require the parties at whose instance he is placed in possession of the property to pay him. Johnson v. Garrett, 23 Minnesota, 565; Knickerbocker v. McKindley Co., 67 Ill. App. 293; High, Rec. §796. The special facts of this case fully justify the order of the trial court. It is not a case where the party asking for the appointment of a receiver is required to pay the receiver's charges without having received any benefit from the receivership. It is a case where the benefits so received were more than five times as great as the amount required to be paid. The order of the court requiring the appellant to pay the receiver is, in effect, the enforcement of the receiver's equitable right to be paid from a fund growing out of the receivership." In Cutter v. Pollock, 7 N. Dak. 631, 634, the Supreme Court of North Dakota, speaking by its chief justice said: "We do not believe that any case can be found to uphold the palpably unjust rule that one who is shown to have had no right to maintain the action, and no interest whatever in the property which he claims, can require that the defendant, who has paid out of his own pocket the expenses of a receivership, shall not call upon him (the plaintiff in the action) for reimbursement." See High on Receivers (3d ed.), $796; Beach on Receivers, § 774.

The above cases relied upon in the Circuit Court of Appeals