WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND. 395

In this case a receiver whose feelings appeared to have been too much en-
listed to permit him to be impartial was removed, and another person
appointed in his stead.

bill charging that the trustee under an assignment for the benefit of credi-
tors had placed the property under the care of a person of notoriously bad
character, and that by his and the grantor's refusing to allow an inventory
of the property to be made, the creditors would be deprived of the neces-
sary proof to show the extent of a loss, if any should occur, makes a case of
imminent danger, justifying the granting of an injunction and the appoint-
ment of a receiver, without notice to the defendants. Rosenberg v. Moore,
11 Md. 376.

2. Powers, duties and liabilities of receiver*. The mere appointment of
receivers does not place the property in custodia legis, as against a stranger
to the proceedings, in possession and claiming the right to retain it. Everett
v. Neff, 28 Md. 187. Actual possession by the receiver is necessary to place
the property in the custody of the Court. After a receiver has been ap-
pointed and has taken the rightful possession of the property, it is a con-
tempt of Court for a third person to attempt to deprive him of that posses-
sion by force, or even by a suit without the permission of the Court making
the appointment. Ibid. If at the time of the appointment the property is
in possession of a third person who claims the right to retain it, the receiver
must either proceed by suit in the ordinary way to try his right, or the com-
plainant should make such third person a party to the suit, and apply to
have the receivership extended to the property in his hands, so that an order
for the delivery of the property may be made, which will be binding upon
him, and which may be enforced by contempt if it is not obeyed. Ibid.

While as a general rule a receiver will not be permitted to lay out more
than a small sum at his own discretion, in the preservation or improvement
of the property under his charge, but should in all cases when it is practica-
ble, apply to the Court for authority, before involving the estate in expense,
yet this general rule should not he so rigidly enforced as to work wrong and
injustice, when the receiver has acted in good faith, and under such circum-
stances as will enable the Court to see that if previous authority had been
applied for it would have been granted. Brown v. Hazlehurttt. 54 Md. 36.
Cf. Cowdrey v. B. R. 93 U. S. 352.

Receivers are not liable for a claim not filed till after they had distributed
the funds in their hands, nor for the neglect of a co-receiver to file such claim
after it had been left with him for that purpose. And the receiver guilty of
such neglect is not liable as receiver, but individually. Keene v. Gaehle, 56
Md, 343. As to the authority of receivers to employ clerks, &c. see Hollo-
way v. Turner, 61 Md. 217. As to sale by receiver of debts due to a firm,
see Loney v. Penniman, 43 Md. 130. As to rights of a purchaser from a re-
ceiver, see Koontz v. Bank, 16 Wallace, 196.

Where a receiver, acting under an order of the Court, sold property of
the defendant, and while the proceeds of sale were in his hands, the defend-
ant obtained the benefit of the insolvent laws, and the receiver was ap-
pointed his trustee in insolvency, it was held on an appeal by the receiver
and the defendant from an order of the Chancery Court requiring him to
bring the fund into Court, 1. That the policy of the insolvent laws does
not debar the Court in which the fund is found at the moment of insol-
vency, from taking all steps necessary for its preservation. 2. That the
above order does not conflict with the power of the insolvent Court, but is
ancillary to it; and the money being brought in and the amount ascertained,