278 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

case, and the rights and equities of the parties may render ne-
cessary ;" but no opinion was delivered, or statement made of
the grounds upon which this decision was based.

After the case was decided in the Court of Appeals, John
Glenn, as permanent trustee of Ken", who had petitioned for
the benefit of the insolvent laws, filed his petition in this court,
to have the money, property, books and effects of the defend-
ant, in the hands of the receiver, delivered over to him. The
receiver was directed to show cause against this application,
and an answer was filed by him for that purpose. By this it
was represented that sundry attachments had been laid in his
hands, issued upon judgments, some of which were rendered
against Kerr, individually, and some against Kerr and Potter,
jointly; that one of them was issued prior to the decree of
the Court of Appeals; the residue subsequently thereto, and
that all of them were still depending; the former in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the district of Maryland; and
the others in Baltimore County Court; and submitted whether
the receiver under the circumstances, could with safety to him-
self deliver up the property.]

THE CHANCELLOR :

It is insisted on the part of the insolvent trustee of Kerr, that
the orders granting and continuing the injunction, and appoint-
ing a receiver, being reversed, Kerr, if he had not petitioned,
would be remitted to all his rights, and would be entitled to a
restitution of the property; and that the trustee being clothed
with all his rights, the possession must be restored to him.

It is to be presumed, however, if the Court of Appeals had
considered it proper to dispose of the question of title in this
summary way; that is, if they had thought, that in no possible
phase which the cause might assume, the creditors of the mer-
cantile house of E. M. Kerr and Company, or the joint credi
tor of Kerr and Potter, could intervene in this cause for the pro-
tection of their rights, and ask the court to apply the assets to
their payment in preference to the private creditors of Kerr,
they would either have dismissed the bill, or remanded the