280 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

not have been done if they had meant to decide the whole con-
troversy, and to restore to the appellant without restriction and
at once, the subject in dispute.

Supposing it possible, nay, probable, that if the creditors of
E. M. Kerr & Co., had been parties to the record before the
Court of Appeals, a different decision would have been made,
it follows, that as these creditors are now here upon the invita-
tion of the court itself, it would be proper, at least for the pre-
sent, to abstain from passing any order which may seriously
endanger their interests. In a very short time, it is believed,
the Court of Appeals will deliver their opinion, when the doubts
which now surround this subject will be removed.

The order which the court will pass, whilst it will secure the
property for those who may be entitled to it, will expose no
parties to danger.

The propriety of the order which the Chancellor, under the
circumstances thinks it right to pass, would seem to be vindi-
cated by another consideration.

Attachments, as we have seen, have been laid in the hands
of the receiver, one of them prior to, and the other since, his
authority was revoked, and it would, perhaps, be presumptuous
in this court to pronounce absolutely upon the validity of these
proceedings. Should they be sustained by the courts in which
they are pending, and this court, by its order should take the
property from the receiver, and hand it over to the trustee of
Kerr, the former might be involved in heavy loss. It is surely
the duty of this court to protect its officer from loss when acting
in the discharge of his duty, and especially when it can be done
without exposing the rights or interests of others to the slight-
est risk.

It has been urged in the argument, that the right of the pe-
titioner, as the permanent trustee in insolvency of Kerr, to the
possession and administration of this fund, is superior to any
which he himself could have claimed, if he had not applied for
the benefit of the insolvent laws; and the case of Alexander vs.
Ghiselin is relied upon in support of this position.

That case might have a controlling effect, if it did not appear,