Adams

At or about the time this action was instituted, one of the petitioners, A. A. Cohen, was appointed the receiver therein, and entered upon the performance of the duties of his office. Subsequently Woods, on behalf of himself and his co-partners, Adams Haskell, filed in this court a petition in insolvency, and the petitioners herein, said Cohen, Roman f Jones, were appointed assignees, and as such succeeded Cohen the receiver. Both appointments were made in and under the authority of this court: afterwards, the supreme court held that this court had no jurisdiction in the matter of the proceedings in insolvency, inasmuch as it appeared by the insolvents’ petition, that a portion of the indebtedness sought to be discharged, had been incurred as bankers. (Cohen vs. Barrett, 5 Cal., 195 .) The proceedings in insolvency were consequently void ab initio.

Cohen having been regularly appointed receiver, continued as such notwithstanding the proceedings in insolvency, until his removal from *358 office/ Montan §■ Jones, inasmuch as they entered upon ■ the. performance of the duties under the authority of the court, received the, feels in fee custody of .the court, must, in conjunction…