lAYLOB V. tIFE AS800UTIOS OF AMEEICA. ���l6d ���the enfôrcement of rules and regulations of practice govern-' ing the discretion of the court in appointing reeeivers aîid taking bonds. Eelfe is subjeot to this court; can beremoved or pnnished for contempt; and, in this day of railroads iand telegraplis, his residence, a day's journey from the state, where his duties are confined to foreclosing mortgages by legal pro- ceedings or sales under powers of trust, cannot be a serions objection. High on Eecivers, § 69. �He is required to account semi-monthly, and no opportunity is afïorded for any violation of the injunction. It is no more oneirouB for these citizens of Tennessee to be compelled, if necessary, to pursue Eelfe for a breach of his duties in the courts of Missouri, than it would be to compel the citizens of Missouri, or any of the 30 other states, to pursue' a citizen of' Tennessee for any breach of his duties as recei'ver, if one should be appointed residing in that state. And ihis appliea as well to the sureties on the bond. The plaintifïs are not alone interested in the receiver and his bond. A. receiTër should, undoubtedly, be an impartial and indifferent peïboin. High on Eeceivers, § Q3, et teq.,- Kerr on Eeceivers, 2;'; And' generally neither a party to.a suit nor a trustee, wbose bùsi-' ness it is to watch a receiver, should be appointed; Kerr on' Eeceivers, 126. But these rules are not without numerous' exceptions. Id.; High on Eeceivers, §§63, 81. Beiineson' V. Bill, 62 111. 408, 411. The interest of ail the credîtors of every grade should be consideredi Richards v^ RailroacLj 1" Hughes, 28. �E«lfe, in this case, does not occupy the attitude of a party owning property over which there is a controversy. He is not a trustee solely for particular persons, antagonistic to the plain- tiffs here. He is trustee for the plaintiffs as much as others. It is immaterial to him how the f unds are distributed or who bas priorities. He is wholly impartial and indifferent, or should be. It is his duty to resist every claim not legal and lawful, and to pay just as he may be ordered; but this does not make him partial or antagonistic to one policy holder more than another. He bas ail the books, ail the papers, and is famil- iar with ail the business of the company. He has supervision ����
