Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/551

 FABMERS' L. & T. CO. V. CENTRAL &. OF lOWA. 639 �ted by themselves, or contracts in whioh they assume to bind themselves personally. �It is therefore obvious that suits against receivers are really and substantially suits against the fund or property of which they are the oustodians. They represent the property or fund. If judgment be obtained against them, the court orders it to be satisfied ont of the fund or property, This view will be made evident by the supposition that the receiver should be removed or diseharged, while the property or fund should remain in the custody of the court. In such case, it cannot be doubted that the court would entertain an inter- vening petition in the nature of a proeeeding in rem against the fund or property at the suit of any one entitled to a lien upon it, or having a claim in law or equity to satisfaction eut of it. �Doubtless, in such case, the court would have power to appoint counsel to represent the fund or property in the liti- igation concerning it, and would require notice to parties interested in its sale or distribution. But what would be the remedy of the claimant if the court should discharge the receiver, and place the fund or property beyond its control, by turning it over, without reservation, to a purchaser ? I confess that if the fund or property should be tumed over to a purchaser without reservation, I am at a loss to see what the remedy of the claimant would be — as, for example, the old railroad company — in this case. How could he found a Personal action of tort or contract against a party who would be a Etranger to the tort or contract ? How could he count Tipon or prove the tort or contract against a party who never «ommitted the one nor made the other ? �It has been suggested by an eminent ]udge that the receiver might be treated as the agent of the defendant railway com- pany, and the action thus maintained directly against the company. But it seems to me that this position is untena- ble. There is not the slightest analogy between the relation of a receiver to the railway company and the relation of an agent to his principal. An agent acts and contracts for, and in the name of, his principal, and by his authority. He ��� �