By comity a receiver may be permitted to sue for a specific asset, but not even then if the property would thereby be taken out of the state to the prejudice of domestic cred itors ; Nolen v. Kaufman, 70 Mo. App. 653. If he has obtained a judgment, he may sue on it in a foreign state ; McBride v. Bank, 200 Fed. 895.
But it is also said to be now "well estab lished that a receiver may invoke the aid of a foreign 'court in obtaining possession of property or funds within its jurisdiction to which he is entitled," but not against the creditors of a non-resident debtor who are seeking to subject property to the payment of their debts ; Catlin v. Silver-Plate Co., 123 Ind. 477, 24 N. E. 250, 8 L. R. A. 62, 18 Am. St. Rep. 338; and this is a matter of comity; National Trust Co. v. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. 155. A receiver appointed in one state can sue in another by comity, in respect of prop erty rights in the latter state, provided the domestic creditors are protected; Toronto General T. Co. v. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 37, 25 N. E. 198.
It is held that an Illinois receiver appoint ed at the suit of a non-resident creditor may hold the assets against an Illinois creditor ; Holbrook v. Ford, 153 Ill. 633, 39 N. E. 1091, 27 L. R. A. 324, 46 Am. St. Rep. 917.
Assets in another state of the party for whose property the receiver is appointed are subject to attachment in the courts of such other state by creditors there resident, and even by non-resident creditors (other than those of the receivership state) ; Mason v. Mfg. Co., 81 Md. 446, 32 Atl. 311, 29 L. R. A. 273, 48 Am. St. Rep. 524.
See Linville v. Hadden, 88 Md. 594, 41' Atl. 10K, 43 L. R. A. 222; Gilman v. Ketcham 81 Wis. 60, 54 N. W. 395, 23 L. R. A. 52, 36 Am. St. Rep. 899 ; CoMmercial Nat. Bank v. Iron & S. Co., 95 Tenn. 172, 31 S. W. 1002, 29 L. R. A. 164 ; Robertson v. Staed, 135 Mo. 135, 36 S. W. 610, 33 L. R. A. 203, 58 Am. St. Rep. 569.
In Buswell v. Order of Iron Hall, 161 Mass. 224, 36 N. E. 1065, 23 L. R. A. 846, it was held that the ancillary receiver should remit the fund to the home receiver for distribution, if it should appear that Massachusetts claim ants would there be placed on an equality with home claimants. This case is said to have gone to the limits of comity ; Smith, Rec. § 73. Where a receiver takes property to
a foreign state his possession will be protect ed ; Siugerly v. Fox, 75 Pa. 112 ; contra., Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 551, 22 Pac. 892, 6 L. R. A. 792, 15 Am. St. Rep. 76.
One who has a legal cause of action sound ing merely in tort against a receiver appoint ed by a court of chancery has a right to pur sue his redress by an action at law. Such action cannot be brought without the chan cellor's permission, but this cannot be re fused, unless the claim preferred be mani festly unfounded ; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 218, 21 L. Ed. 447. See Barton v. Barbour, 25 Alb. L. J. 46.
A receiver cannot be sued without the con sent of the appointing court ; Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473, 13 Sup. Ct. 1008, 37 L. Ed. 815; Wayne Pike Co. v. State, 134 Ind. 672, 34 N. E. 440 ; Smith v. Ry. Co., 151 Mo. 391, 52 S. W. 378, 48 L. R. A. 368 ; but there are excep tions to this rule: By act of congress, March 3d, 1889, every receiver appointed by a fed eral court may be sued without leave of court, but subject to the general equity juris diction of the court which appointed him. This act extends to any court of competent jurisdiction, state or federal, and not merely to the appointing court ; McNulta v. Loch ridge, 141 U. S. 327, 12 Sup. Ct. 11, 35 L. Ed. 796 ; Dillingham v. Russell, 73 Tex. 47, 11 S. W. 139, 3 L. R. A. 634, 15 Am. St. Rep. 753. It applies to actions for personal injuries to passengers ; Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1, 25 S. W. 587, 42 Am. St. Rep. 516; suits on patents may be brought without leave ; Hup feld v. Piano Co., 66 Fed. 788; but not one to condemn a crossing over the railroad in the receiver's hands ; Buckhannon & N. R. Co. v. Davis, 135 Fed. 707, 68 C. C. A. 345, or one to take from the receiver's control prop erty belonging to the corporation ; Hollifield v. R. Co., 99 Ga. 365, 27 S. E. 715.
Receivers operating a railroad in another state are liable to action there ; Paige v. Smith. 99 Mass. 395; property in another state, In the hands of a receiver, may be gar nisheed there ; Phelan v. Ganebin, 5 Colo. 14 ; where a receiver has taken possession of property not specified in the debree appoint ing him ; Hills v. Parker, 111 Mass. 508, 15 Am. Rep. 63.