Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/477

 4T0 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �everjffhere, and it does seem to me that if the law be that the aBBets in eaoh state must be administered separately, it would greatly faeilitate matters, and be to the advantage of ail persons interested, to have one man receiver in ail the states, although he be required to account in each state ; and that the principles for which plaintiffs contend may be en- forced as well with such a receiver as with 32 of them. �In Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471, 483, a party to the suit, which was a bill to settle up a partnership, was ap- pointed receiver, and Chancellor Cooper approves the prac- tice for obvious reasons, that apply as well to a case like this. Todd V. Rich, 2 Tenn. Ch. 107. Piaintiffs were receivers in Boyle v. Bettews Llantwit Co. L. E. 2 Ch. Div. 726. The case of Perry v. Oriental Hotels Co. L. E. 5 Ch. Ap. 419, 420, is directly in point, a receiver having been removed in order to ap- point the liquidator of the company receiver; and in CampbeU v. Compagnie de Bellegarde, L. E. 2 Ch. Div. 181, the same thing was done, the court saying it was intolerable to have numer- ouB receivers. So far as possible the same principles should be applied in cases like this. In Barcroft v. Snodgrass, 1 Cold. 430, a trustee in an insolvency assignment was appointed receiver. It does not appear that any objection was made, neither does it appear that any consent was given. Instances of the appoiûtment oi non-residents, parties, and trustees as receivers will be found in Wilmer v. Railroad, 2 "W^oods, 409, 410; Stanton v. Railroad, Id. 506; and Young v. Railroad, Id. 606 ; and no doubt it is often done in the federal courts. Where the court appointed a receiver in India he was required to give sureties resident in England. Cockburn v. Raphaël, 3 Sim. & Stu. 453. But in Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co. 5 Wall. 188, the supreme court did not concur in the opinion of the district judge, that the fact of the non-residence of the sureties within the district was a Buiïïcient reason for rejecting a bond otherwise unobjectionable. It was a supersedeas bond, but I see no difference in principle. The non-resident liti- gants in the federal courts should not be restricted, in giviug litigation bonds, to finding sureties away from their homes, where it is often diffiçult, if not impossible, to do so. If there ����