vent whose estate he represents, domiciled in the state where he is attempting to sue, of any remedy given them by the domestic law.' If he is so fortunate as to be the re ceiver of the property of a railroad com pany engaged in the operations of inter state commerce, and while prosecuting such operations, sends one of the cars, which have come into his possession as receiver, into the state of California, over the line of some other railroad, to avoid the delay and expense of unloading ajid reloading at the state line of the state within which he has been appointed receiver, he will find that the car is liable to be seized under attach ment or execution, by a creditor of the in solvent railroad company residing in Califor nia,— and this notwithstanding the fact that he had reduced it into his possession in the state where he was appointed receiver, and that he was appointed receiver, not by a state court, but by a court of the United States.2 He will, therefore, find it necessary, either to pay all the debts of the insol vent railroad company, whose property has passed into his custody, owing to individu als or corporations domiciled within the state of California, or else withdraw from the ordinary operations of interstate trans portation within that state. Nor, he being a mere layman, will he derive any consola tion from what his lawyer will tell him, — that there is neither law nor sense in the decision of the California court, and that every other American court to which the question has been presented has decided it the other way, — holding that where a re ceiver or other trustee, upon whom the property of an insolvent has been devolved 1Taylor v. Columbian Ins. Co. 14 Allen (Mass.) 353; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. (U. S.) 322, 336; Blake v. Wil liams, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 286; May v. Breed, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 15, 41, 42; Willitts v. Waite, 25 N. V. 577; Catlin v. Wil cox Silver Plate Co. 123 Ind. 477; s.c. 24 N. E. Rep. 250; Pugh v. Ilurtt, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 22; Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 531; j. c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 76. "Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 557; s. c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 76.
in invitum, has once acquired title and pos session for the purposes of his trust, if that property finds its way into another state and is there detained from him, he has the same right to reclaim it which he would have if he were the full and absolute owner of it.' He will find, if he crosses into the state of Iowa and attempts to prosecute an action to collect an honest debt due to the insol vent whose estate he represents, that he will not be allowed so to do, although it is not made to appear that any creditor of the in solvent, domiciled in Iowa, desires to im pound the debt, or that the insolvent has any creditor in that state at all.1 Let us further suppose that he has been appointed to his trust under the laws of Indiana.3 In vain will he appeal to the sense of justice and comity of the Iowa judges, by drawing their attention to the fact that if a receiver appointed in Iowa, had brought an action upon a like demand in Indiana, the decision of the Indiana court would have been ex actly the other way.4 They will retort by drawing his attention to the fact that the Supreme Court of his state, at a more re cent period, has thrown away the comity which courts sometimes extend on this question, by holding that a receiver of a partnership firm, appointed in Illinois, can not hold a debt due to the firm by citizens of Indiana, as against a creditor of the firm in Connecticut, who has attached the debt by garnishment.5 1 Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Keokuk etc. Packet Co. 108 III. 317, 324; Pond v. Cook, 45 Conn. 126; s. c. 29 Am. St. Rep. 668; Cooke v. Orange, 48 Conn. 401; McAlpin v. Jones, 10 La. An. 552; Caniwell v. Serrell, 5 Hurl. & N. 728; Clark v. Connecticut Peat Co. 35 Conn. 303; Taylor v. Boardman, 25 Vt. 581; Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 610; Waters v. Barton, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 450. See note of Mr. Freeman, 15 Am. St. Rep. 82, where the California case is criticised. Upon this question compare Crapo v. Kelly, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 610 with Kelly v. Crapo, 45 N. Y. 86. 2 Ayres v. Siebel, 82 Iowa, 347; s. c. 47 N. W. Rep. 989. 3 Which was, in fact, the case in the decision last cited.
- Metzncr v. Bauer, 98 Ind. 425.
s Catlin v. Wilcox Silver Plate Co. 123 Ind. 477; s.c. 18 Am. St. Rep. 338.
