Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/550

 538' FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �Coinpany of lowa, to resoind an order made at the May term, 1880, granting permission to Mahala Clear, as next friend of Edward Sloan, to sne said receiver, Morrill, for Per- sonal injuries received by said Edward Sloan during the receivership of said Morrill. �The order granting leave was made after Eeceiver Morrill had been discharged, and subsequent to the final decree of May 20, 1879, by which the railway property, and all f unds in the custody of the court, had been turned over to the new railway company, ealled the Central lowa Railway Company. This motion raises a very diffioult and embarrassing ques- tion. It is this : When, in a foreclosure suit, a receiver appointed by the court bas been discharged, and the prop- erty, by the order of the court, turned over to the purchaser, how are unsatisfied claims against the receiver, upon torts committed and contraets made by him, to be prosecuted and satisfied ? Who are to be made defendants to actions upon such claims? How are such cases to be tried? What is the nature of the judgment or decree to be entered, and how is satisfaction to be obtained ? �So long as the receiver is in office, and the fund or prop- erty is under the control of the court, there is no difficulty, for the court will, in all prope^ cases, permit actions to be brought against the receiver, and will order satisfaction to be made out of the fund or property. But it is obvions that such actions are, strictly speaking, rather in the nature of proeeedings in rem than in persoham. �No receiver could be made individually liable in a personal action upon a contract made in bis ofScial capaeity, or for torts committed by bis subordinates. If receivers could be exposed to such individual responsibility, no prudent man would accept such trusts in cases where vast numbers of subordinates must needs be employed, exposing him to the hazard of ruinous liabilities for their misconduct. In this respect receivers are like public officers, who are not indi- vidually responsible upon their officiai contraets, nor for torts committed by their subordinates, but only for torts commit- ��� �