Adams
Adams v. Haskell & Woods
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Heydenfeldt, J.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The order of the Court below in this case, requiring the receiver to pay over the funds and deliver the books and papers to Cohen, Jones and Roman, may be considered as having two objects: First, to make them custodians of the fund, and second, to authorize them to distribute the fund under a proceeding in bankruptcy, which had been commenced, and which was brought to the notice of the Court.
The proceedings in bankruptcy failed because they were illegal and void, consequently the second object of the order had no existence. The parties therefore to whom the fund was committed, were merely custodians or receivers, or bailees by virtue of the order of the Court. They received it from the Court because its possession by the receiver was the possession of the Court; they received it by order of the Court and could consequently only hold it subject to the direction of the Court; it is in their hands, and is not their property; they are surely *116 answerable to some one for it; it can only be to the power from whence they derived it, and whose special property it was when they obtained it.