ART. 9] WHAT MAY BE ATTACHED. 201

Property in the hands of a receiver.

The right of a creditor to attach property in Maryland, is not impaired
by the appointment in another State of a receiver for the defendant in the
attachment. Linville v. Hadden. 88 Md. 594; Hadden r. Linville. 86 Md. 228;
Bartlett v. Wilbur, 53 Md. 494.

The rule that property in the hands of a receiver is not subject to attach-
ment, does not apply until the receiver has actually or constructively taken
possession of the property. Farmers' Bank r. Beaston. 7 G. & J. 421.

Property, etc., in the hands of a trustee for benefit of creditors.

Where a deed for the benefit of creditors is valid, the property hi the
trustee's hands cannot be attached. Mclntosh v. Corner, 33 Md. 598; Horwltz
v. Ellinger, 31 Md. 505; Glenn v. Gill, 2 Md. 18.

An attachment, however, will lie up to the time the dead of trust is
recorded and the trustee's bond filed, and a subsequent record of the deed and
filing of the bond can not affect an attachment already laid. Stiefel v. Boston,
73 Md. 412. See also, White v. Pittsburg Bank, 80 Md. 1.

Funds in the hands of a trustee in equity.

Unascertained funds in the hands of a trustee in equity can not be attached,
because the garnishee can not come in and confess the amount in his hands.
Cockey v. Leister. 12 Md. 129: Bentley v. Shrieve, 4 Md. Ch. 412.

Where a final audit fixes the amount due by a trustee to a debtor, the
money may be attached, and where a portion of such fund has been assigned
prior to such attachment, the balance of the fund may be condemned. Wil-
liams v. Jones, 38 Md. 566. See also, Cockey v. Leister, 12 Md. 129.

If the share of the debtor in the fund in the hands of a trustee is ascer-
tained at any time before trial of the attachment, it may be condemned.
McPherson v. Snowden, 19 Md. 232; Groome v. Lewis. 23 Md. 149; Hardesty
v. Campbell, 29 Md. 537; Early v. Dorsett, 45 Md. 467.

And accounts may be suspended by a court of equity for a reasonable time,
in order that the attaching creditor may obtain Judgment of condemnation
and thus make his attachment effective. Early r. Dorsett, 45 Md. 468.

Property left in trust.

The following bequests in trust are held not to be subject to attachment
in the hands of a trustee by a creditor of the cestui que trust: Property
bequeathed so that the same shall not be liable "To be taken in execution
or attachment or otherwise howsoever, and so that she shall not pledge or
anticipate it." Read v. Safe Deposit, etc., Co., 86 Md. 464. An income
bequeathed to be paid to the beneficiary "Into his own hands and not into
another, whether claiming by his authority or otherwise." Smith v. Towers,
69 Md. 77. An income bequeathed for the support of the testator's son and
his family. "But my will Is that my said son shall have no power to charge,
encumber or anticipate the said income." Jackson Sq., etc., Assn. v. Bartlett,
95 Md. 661.

Where, however, the income from property is left in trust for L. for life,
"The said share to be securely invested as soon as declared, and after her
death to be equally divided between her children." such income is liable to
attachment. Baker v. Reiser, 75 Md. 332.

Property in the hands of an insolvent trustee.

After the conveyance of property to a trustee under our insolvent laws,
a non-resident creditor, like a resident creditor, can not attach. Pinckney v.
Lanahan, 62 Md. 447 (overruling early cases to the contrary).

Where property is attached in the hands of a conventional trustee, and just
after the attachment the defendant goes into insolvency, the further prosecu-
tion of the attachment is stopped, but the inchoate lien acquired by the
plaintiff in the attachment is transferred to the property in the hands of the
insolvent trustee, and will be respected by the insolvent court. Buschman
v. Hanna, 72 Md. 1. See also, Thomas v. Brown. 67 Md. 517; Lynch v. Rob-
erts, 57 Md. 150.

But the insolvent trustee may intervene in the attachment case and move
to quash. Palmer v. Hughes, 84 Md. 657.