Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/867

 BTJOK V. PIEDMOMT «t AELINGTON LIPK INS. 00. .6.6;? �right to sue this company in this court ; that this company had policies distributed in many statçs of the Union, whoae holders could not hear of its bankruptcy for a considerable time after its avowal here; and that the individual action of one of its officers, and of one of its creditors, who happened to be resident on the spot, in taking the mere incipient steps of a suit in a state court within a few days after the avowal of the company's bankruptcy, and before it could be known at a distance, more especially in the absence of any action of the state court assuming jurisdiction of the eontro- versy or of the res, could not defeat the constitutional right of non-residents to sue in this court. And, in consideration of the fact that the defendant company's transactions em- braeed many states, making a United States court the more appropriate tribunal for the adjudication of its affairs, I de- cided that this suit must go on here. �The pleas to the jurisdiction being thus disposed of, I ain now to pass upon the application of complainants for the immediate appointment of a receiver. The defendant com- pany is eonfessedly insolvent. , Being a life insurance com- pany^ insolvency and an assignment of ail itseffects in liqui- dation is final and irretrievable death to its corporate existence. It is incapable of taking care of its own effects, and has itself confessed the fact by assigning them to a trustee. That trustee has confessed his inability to adrainister the prop- erty in accordance with the deed, by taking steps to obtaiQ the aid of a court of chancery in the task. By the insolv' ency, by the act of the defendant company in making an assignment in liquidation, and by the act of the trustee in invoking the aid of a court, the defendants in the suit here have themselves exhibited ail the conditions requisite to authorize a court to appoint a receiver. It is useless to contend that courts should observe extreme caution in enter- ing upon the appointment of receivers. Such caution is only necessarywhere the defendant company's insolvency is denied, ■where the com-pany is in the fuU exercise of its franchises and use of its property, and where the act of the court would abruptly and harshly arrest it in its career of action, and wrest ����