OLNEY V. TANNER. 109 �the receiverBhip reach Buch property it was necessary that the cred- itors' bill should be of broader scope, including the fraudaient grantee as a party defendant, and assailing the fraudaient transfer itself. The receiver appointed in such an action became a receiver of the property described in the bill, and vested with the title as against all the parties to the cause. Browning v. Bettis, 8 Paige, 568 ; Cas- silear v. Simons, Id. 273; Green v. Hicks, 1 Barb. Ch. 309; Van Al- styne v. Cooh, 25 N. Y. 489, 496 ; Edmeston v. Lyae, 1 Paige, 637. In the case last cited, the chancelier, speaking of creditors' bills, says : �"When the property has been fraudulently assigned by the debtor, so that he has no legal or equitable rights as against the assignee, it will be neces- sary to naake the assignee a party to enable the court to reach the property in his hands. A decree against the fraudulent assigner would not in that case give any right to fhe property in the hands of the assignee. But when the debtor still jretains the legal or equitable interest in the property, such interest may be conveyed to the complainant, or transf erred to a receiver under the decree or order of the court." �Unless the fraudulent grantee had been thus made a party to the bill, and the transfer directly assailed, the receiver was liable to an action of trespass for meddling with the property fraudulently trans- ferred, and his appointment as an ofl&cer of the court would not be suffered to protect him. Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige, 388. If prop- erty claimed by the judgment debtor was in the possession of another person making claim to it, a receiver would be appointed who might bring suit to try the contested right, representing in that case the judgment debtor only, (Chipman v. Sabhaton, 7 Paige, 47 ;) but, so far from there being under the former practice any recognition of a title in a mere receiver, who was appointed upon a bill against the judg- ment debtor alone, to property which the debtor did not own, but had conveyed away in fraud of creditors, it was to the very last doubted by the chancellor whether such a receiver had any right even to file a bill to impeach such a conveyanee. It was for the judgment cred- iter himself to pursue this remedy. Green v. Hicks, 1 Barb. Ch. 309, 314. �Since the Code, upon the same doubts, such bills have been dis- missed as unauthorized, (Seymourv. Wilson, 16 Barb. 294; Haynorv. Fowler, 16 Barb. 300,) and in Hyde v. Lynde, 4 Comst. 387, Bronson, G. J., says : "A receiver of the effects of such a [fraudulent] grantor could not avoid the grant." Page 393. In the case of Porter v. Will- iams, 5 Seld. 142, it was, however, finally determined that the re- ��� �
