OLNBI V. TANNBB. 113 �"A receiver is regarded as the representative of the crediter in wliose belialf lie is appointed for the purpose of maintaining an action to avoid fraudulent transfers by the debtor of his property. He may disafflrm his acts, and in doing so he acts as the trustee for creditors." �From this examination it seems clear that a receiver appoiuted in supplementary proceedings cannot be held to be vested, by virtue of his appointment, with the title to property fraudulently conveyed by the judgment debtor. The court which appoints him cannot, as we have seen, put him in possession of such property. It will not author- ize his meddling with it, nor protect him if he do so. If he interfere with it by his own act, or that of his agents, he is liable as a trespasser for its value. He may assail the fraudulent transfer by action, as the ereditor himself might do, and not otherwise ; and he cannot recover more than the individual crediter could recover in a similar action. He may take no steps to set the fraudulent transfer aside unjiil long after his appointment. In the present case it was nearly six months afterwards. Dealings with the property by the voluntary assignee, in the mean time, are valid. Sales pass a good title to the purchaser, (Barney v. Griffen, 4 Saudf. Ch. 652 ; Wakeman v. Grever, i Paige, 42; Fine v. Rikert, 21 Barb. 469; Okie v. Kelly, 12 Pa. St. 323, S2T;) and even the proceeds of such sales, if disbursed according to the terms of the assignment, cannot be reached, nor the assignee held accountable therefor. Averillv. Loacks, 6 Barb. 477; In re Wilson, 4 Bank. 430; and cases last above cited. AU the essential attributes of a title, or even of a specifie lien, in the receiver during that period are therefore wanting, for a specifie lien could not be thus divested. Murray v. Ballon, 1 Johns. Ch. 577, 580 ; Sheridan v. And/rews, 49 N. Y. 480-483, His right is a right of action only, like that of the ered- itor whom he represents. He has no title until so adjudieated, or until he is appointed receiver in an action brought to set aside the conveyance. If he sleep upon his rights they will be lost. Until he acquires title or a specifie lien by such a suit, his right of recovery is liable to be defeated by the same contingencies which would defeat a ereditor pursuing the same remedy. Among these contingencies are a prior sale and distribution of the property by the assignee, a levy by any other execution ereditor, (Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. 494; Cuyler v. Moreland, 6 Paige, 273; Lansing v. Easton, 7 Paige, 364; Storm v. Badger, 8 Paige, 129; Becker v. Torrance, 31 N. Y. 631; Davenport y. Kelly, 42 N. Y. 193; In re Pitts, 9 Fbd. Ebp. 542,) or an adjudication in bankruptcy. v.lO.no.l— 8 ��� �
