WILLIAMSON v. WILSON. 435

proposed to be taken, to some two or more other creditors, or one
or more of the firm or their solicitor; 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 cre-
ditor 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; provided 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 remarks
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.

4th May, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—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 anal-
ogous to that in which a sheriff is placed in relation to a court of
common 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 the 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 discharged in toto or to the amount of the value seized in
execution. And the sheriff alone is held answerable to the amount
which has so come to his hands to the plaintiff, at whose suit the
levy was made.(m)

The express terms of the order of appointment in this, as in all

(m) Wilbraham v. Snow, 2 Saund. 47, note.