WILLIAMSON v. WILSON.—1 BLAND. 411

the parties in such cases in taking testimony without limit as to
time would be contrary to reason and the usual course of the
Court in similar cases.

Whereupon it is ordered, that any creditor of the firm of Wil-
son, Williamson & Co., whose claim is stated or noticed by the
auditor in his report, and also the said co partners, be and they are
hereby severally authorized to take the deposition of any wit-
nesses in relation to such claims, before the commissioners ap-
pointed to take testimony in Baltimore; provided, that three
days' notice be given as usual, by the creditor, in whose behalf
the testimony is * proposed to be taken, to some two or more
other creditors, or one or more of the firm or their solicitor; 435

or by one or more of the firm, in whose behalf the testimony
is proposed to be taken, to some two or more of the creditors
or their solicitor. But the creditor against whose claim the
testimony, when taken, is intended particularly to operate, must
himself or his solicitor be so notified. And depositions so taken,
subject to all legal exceptions, may be read in evidence; pro-
vided they are filed in the Chancery office on or before the first
day of May next.

The plaintiff by a petition filed on the 6th of April, 1827, stated,
that Jacob Schley the receiver was then dead; and that adminis-
tration had been granted on his estate: upon which he prayed,
that another receiver might be appointed, according to the recom-
mendations therewith filed; to whom the administrators might be
ordered to pay and deliver over the money, property, books, and
vouchers of the firm which had come to the hands of their intes-
tate. And on the 12th of the same month John Scott, who had
been thus recommended by almost all the creditors, filed his re-
marks and propositions, in which he says, that he was willing to
serve as receiver without any commission upon the money received
by the late Jacob Schley.

BLAND, C.. 4th May, 1827.—A receiver appointed by this Court
must be considered as its agent or executive officer. He stands
in a situation, as regards this Court, in many respects analogous
to that in which a sheriff is placed in relation to a Court of com-
mon law.

It is made the duty of a sheriff by a fieri facias to seize and
take into his possession the property of the defendant; to convert it
into money and to bring money so made into Court or pay it to
the plaintiff. In this respect a sheriff acquires a possessory right
to the property which he has been thus authorized to seize and take
into his possession; he may maintain an action grounded on such
right; and the defendant whose property has been so taken is dis-
charged in toto or to the amount of the value seized in execution.