
    
      Peter Cagger v. Lancelot Howard.
    
    N. Hill, Jun. for complainant;
    J. Edwards, for the defendant.
    Constiuetion of 193d míe.
   The chancel-cellor stated that the object of the 193d rule directing that where two or moro bills are filed by different creditors against the same debtor no more than one receiver shall be appointed, was to save the expense of different receiverships, and to prevent a conflict of claims between them as to the property assigned to them, by the defendant in the different suits. And he decided that the principle of the rule should be adhered to even where the same person is made a defendant alone as the judgment debtor in one suit, and is joined with others as defendant in another suit; where the defendants in the respective suits have no conflicting claims with each other in relation to the property which is directed to be assigned and delivered to the receiver ; and where the receiver in the one is willing to act as the receiver in the other, and to give such additional security as is required by the court.

Power to compel receivers to accept the trust.

Power of court to remove them.

Form of assignment in credit- or's suit.

What passes» under it.

Form of exception of exempt property.

That in cases coming within that rule a receiver who has consented to acrept the trust in one suit has no right to decline it in another, and he may be compelled to accept the trust in a second suit; if both suits are before the chancellor or the same vice chancellor. Or if he refuses to give security in the second suit he may he removed from his trust in the first suit.

So much of the application as seeks to reverse the decision of the master appointing Hinds the receiver in this suit denied with costs.

Held, that the assignment to be executed by the defendant in a creditor’s suit need not contain a reservation of property which he holds merely in the character of trustee for others, upon avail’d trust, and in which he has no beneficial interest. As nothing will pass, under the general words of such an assignment, except property or things in action, in which the defendant had some beneficial interest at the time of the commencement of the suit. Neither is it necessary to except property which defendant has already assigned to a receiver appointed in a previous suit.

That such assignment should contain an exception of such property as is by law exempted from sale on execution ; whenever it is made to appear to the^master that the defendant is entitled to have any part of his property thus exempted ; and this notwithstanding the general language of the order of reference.

In this case the assignment as settled by the master, was diieoted to be modified by inserting therein the following exception : “ Except such articles of property as were, at the time of making the above recited order, legally exempt from levy and sale under any execution which might have been issued on the judgment against the said party of the first part, mentioned and set forth in the bill of complaint filed in the cause aforesaid in the court of chancery ; upon the ground that the said party of the first part was, at the time of making of such order, a householder, or had a family for which hé provided,.”  