Humphreys

The plaintiffs in this action are receivers of the road and other property of the Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Company. They were appointed by the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, May 25, 1884, by an order *552 made in an action to which the railway company was a party, and were thereby authorized to take possession of said road, to manage, control, and operate it, and preserve and protect all its property. At the date of their appointment a certain freight-car belonging to the company was at Toledo, in the state of Ohio, where, on the 29th of May, 1884, it came into their possession. It was subsequently brought by them in the course of their business as receivers to the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, a place within the jusisdiction of the court by which they were appointed. On the 16th of March, 1885, they loaded the car with freight consigned to San Francisco, intending that when the freight was unloaded at San Francisco the car should he returned to St. Louis. While the car was in San Francisco it was attached by the defendant, as sheriff of San Francisco, in a suit brought by Henry Payot and Isaac Upham against the…

I dissent. Action to recover a car. Trial by the court, and judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Motion of defendant for a new trial, which was denied. Appeal by defendant from judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial.

It is conceded that on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1884, the plaintiffs were by an order of the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Missouri, wherein the Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Eailway Company was a party, appointed receivers of the railroad, and all the property of the company, with power and instructions to take possession of the railroad, and to manage, control, and operate it, and preserve and protect all its property.

It further appears that the car in suit came into the .possession of the receivers above named at Toledo, Ohio, on May 29, 1884, when it was delivered by the company to the plaintiffs, as receivers, and that the receivers have used this car in carrying on the business of the railroad from that day until it was attached, as appears in this action, on the first day of April, 1885.

After the car came into the possession of the receivers, it was by them brought in the course of their business as receivers to…

I dissent, and concur in most of the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Thornton.

Rehearing denied.