as  amended  by  L.  1882,  c.  399.  N.  S.  427;  Van  Rensselaer  v.  Emery,

2  Chautauqua  Co.  Bant  v.  Wbite,  9  How.  (X.  Y.)  Pr.  135  (18-54);  Os-
6  Barb.  (N.  T.)  589  (1849);  Deven-  bom  v.  Heyer,  2  Paige  Ch.  (X.  T.)
dorf  V.  Dickinson,  21  How.  (N.  T.)  342(1831);  Baker  v.  Adm'rof  Back-
Pr.  275  (1861);  Baker  v.  Adm'r  of  us,  32  111.  79(1863);  Hooper  v.  Win-
Backus,  32  ni.  79  (1863) ;  Waters  v.  ston,  24  111.  353  (1860) ;  Kaiser  v.
Carroll,  9  Terg.  (Tenn.)  102  (1836);  Kellar,  21  Iowa  95  (1866);  Ellicott
Booth  T.  Clark,  58  TJ.  S.  (17  How.)  T.  Warford,  4Md.  80(1853);  William-
322(1854);  bk.15L.ed.  164;Wyatt's  son  v.  Wilson,  1  Bland,  Ch.  (Md.)
Prac.  Beg.  355.  418  (1826) ;  King  v.  Cutts,  24  Wis.
3  Eddy  V.  Co-operative  Dress  627  (1869) ;  Booth  v.  Clark,  58  U.  S.
Assoc,  3  N.  Y.  Civ.  Proc.  Rep.  434  (17  How.)  322  (1854);  bk.  15  L.  ed.
(188.3).  164;  Meier  v.  Kansas  Pacific  R.  Co.,

1  Brown  v.  Northrup,  15  Abb.  (IST.  5  Dill.    C.    C.  476  (1878) ;  Davis  v.
Y.)  Pr.  N.  S.  333  (1873).  Curtis  v.  Duke  of  Marlborough,  2  Swans.  113

Leavitt,  1  Abb.  (K.  Y.)  Pr.  278  (1855) ;  (1819).
Corey  v.  Long,  43  How.  (N.  Y.)  Pr.  ^  GUlet  v.   Moody,   3  N.   Y.   479


424        EFFECT  OF  APPOINTING  A  EECEIVBR.
