104 FEDERAL REPORTER. �In re Kerosene OU Co. 6 Blatohf. 521;) and if the "suit" involves as an essential part of it the determination of such an adverse claim, then the whole "suif'is properly brought in the district or the cir- cuit court, although other questions be involved, and other parties be necessarily present to be bound by the decree. Burhank v. Bigelow, 14 N. B. K. 445, 447 ; Lathrop v. Brake, 13 N. B. E. 472 ; In re Casey, 10 Blatchf. 376, 382; Marshall v. Knox, 16 Wall. 551; Bachman v. Packard, 7 N. B. E. 353; Morgan v. Thornhill, 11 Wall. 65; In re The Iran Mountain Co. 9 Blatchf. 320 ; Poster v. Ames, 2 N. B. E. 455; Markson v Haney, 12 N. B. E. 484; Glenny v, Langdon, 98 U. S. 24. �2. Upon the authority of the case of Booth v. Clarke, 17 How. 322, I think there is much doubt whether the complainant as a re- ceiver, an offieer of a state court, has any such standing in a court of the United States sitting in bankruptcy as entitles him to its aid in a case like this, seeking a preference in contravention of the intent and policy of the bankrupt act. Outside of the jurisdietion which appoints him, a receiver is not ordinarily entitled to maintain suits except by comity; and this comity does not extend to aiding prefer- ences sought to be acquired by statutory assignments or other pro- ceedings in invitim, to the detriment of other oreditors whose interests are in the keeping of foreign or independent tribunals, Booth v. Clarke, 17 How. 322; Brigham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237, 242; Chandler v. Siddle, 10 N. B. E. 236 ; Willitts v. Waite, 25 N. Y. 577, 587; Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320; Runk v. St. John, 29 Barb. 585; High, Eeceivers, § 156; Bctton v. Valentine, 1 Curt. 168; Hope Mutual, etc., v. Taylor, 2 Eobt. 278, 284. �In Booth v. Clark this question was elaborately considered in the supreme court of the United States. The case there was analogous to the present, except that the suit by the New York receiver was there brought in the District of Columbia, and also except that in that case no fraudulent assignment intervened requiring, as in this case, a further judgment of the court in aid of the receiver's title. In a lengthy opinion, Swayne, J., says : �" We think that a receiver has never been recognized by a foreign tribunal as au actor in a suit. He is not within that comity which nations have perniitted, etc. * * * A receiver is appoiiited under a creditor's bill for one or more oreditors, as the case may be, for their beneflts, to the exclu- sion of all other oreditors of the rtebtor, if there be any such as there are in this case. Whether appointed, as this receiver was, under the statute of 2^ew York, or under the rules and practice of chaucery, as they may be, his officiai relations to the court are the same. * * * He has no extra- ��� �
