Adams

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

*477 When this case was here, upon appeal by the intervenors from an order directing them to pay over to the receiver the funds, which they had received as assignees in bankruptcy, we decided, that in consequence of the proceedings in bankruptcy being coram non judice, they held the fund which they had obtained by the order of the Court, as the custodians of the Court. There was nothing indeed, except the name, in which they differed in character from regularly appointed receivers. Had we not taken this view of their condition, we could not have sustained the summary order of the Court requiring them to pay the money to the receiver, and which, in the event of their refusal, subjected them to the penalties of contempt. They would simply have been liable to be sued for the money like any other creditor.

It follows necessarily, that as they were bound to obey the orders of the chancellor in their relation to the fund, as well as regarded its safe custody as its return, they are correlatively entitled to the protection of the Court against all loss for disbursements which were necessary and proper, and such as a reasonable and prudent man, acting…