CORPORATIONS. 693

When a receiver has been appointed for a mortgagor corporation, the leave of
the court having jurisdiction over the receiver should be obtained before the prop-
erty is sold under the mortgage, but where such sale is reported to that court and
ratified thereby, such ratification is valid and binding. Forest Lake Cemetery v.
Baker, 113 Md. 539.

The appointment of receivers under this section does not affect the lien of a
mortgage or the power of sale therein; the possession of the receivers is the
possession of the court; the receivers hold the property subject to the mortgage
and may only sell the equity of redemption save by the written consent of the
mortgagee. Hence an appeal by the mortgagee from an order appointing receivers
will be dismissed; he should apply to the court for permission to sell the prop-
erty, and if the court refuses, an appeal lies. Man'fr's & Merchants Co. v. Pyles,
125 Md. 321.

This section is a combination of secs. 377, 382 and 383 of art. 23 of the Code of
1904. The vesting in the receiver is by this section made the legal consequence of
a decree of dissolution. This section referred to in construing sec. 77—see notes
thereto. Hughes v. Hall, 117 Md. 552. And see Hughes v. Hall, 118 Md. 677.

The operation of the bankrupt law held not to be defeated by a decree of dis-
solution and appointing receivers, under sec. 377 of the Code of 1904. In re Storck
Lumber Co., 114 Fed. 360.

Sec. 382 of the Code of 1904, referred to in deciding that the right of removal
does not apply to proceedings for the forfeiture of chartered franchises. Bel Air,
etc., Club v. State, 74 Md. 301.

Sec. 382 of the Code of 1904, referred to in denying the priority of the claim of
the state against an insolvent insurance company when no proceeding to enforce
the claim was taken before the receiver was appointed. State v. Williams, 101
Md. 534.

Sec. 377 of the Code of 1904, cited but not construed in Tompkins v. Sperry, etc.,
Co., 96 Md. 575.

Sec. 377 of the Code of 1904, cited but not construed in Blackistone v. State,

117 Md. 238.
See notes to secs. 88 and 92.

An. Code, sec. 80. 1904, sec. 385. 1888, sec. 272. 1868, ch. 471, sec. 193.
1908, ch. 240, sec. 55.

95. Upon the dissolution of any corporation of this State in any man-
ner otherwise than by judicial proceedings, and until other persons shall be
appointed as receivers by some court of competent jurisdiction, the directors
at the time of dissolution shall become and be trustees for the creditors,
stockholders and members of the corporation so dissolved. They shall take
title to its assets, real and personal, and shall have full power to wind up
and settle its affairs, to use1 for and collect its assets and to pay its debts;
and they shall divide among the stockholders or members, the money and
other property that shall remain after the payment of the debts and neces-
sary expenses; and the said trustees shall be jointly and severally liable
to the creditors, stockholders and members of such corporation to the extent
of its property and effects that shall come into their hands.

An alleged reason for the appointment of a receiver ex parte, held answered by
this section. Balto. Trust Co. v. George's Creek C. & I. Co., 119 Md. 31.

This section referred to in construing sec. 94—see notes thereto. Hughes v. Hall,

118 Md. 678.
See notes to secs. 88 and 92.

An. Code, sec. 81. 1904, secs. 384, 386, 387 and 389. 1888, secs. 271, 273, 274 and 276.
1868, ch. 471, secs. 192, 194, 195 and 197. 1908, ch. 240, sec. 56.

96. The dissolution of a corporation shall not relieve its stockholders
or directors or other officers from any obligations and liabilities imposed
on them by law; nor shall it abate any pending suit or proceeding by or

1 Evidently a typographical error.