Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/894

880 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the complainant is himself a trustee, suing for the benefit of the defrauded creditors of the bankrupts. �The same considerations apply with equal force to the choice of counsel by the receiver. In general, he ought not to employ the soliciter of either party. High, Eec. § 823; Edwards, Eeo. 111; 8 Cal. 319. �But in this case the person who is of all the fittest to advise the receiver, and, if necessary, to stimulate his efforts, is the soliciter, who, with indefatigable industry and tenacity, bas succeeded in ex^, posing the fraudulent conspiracy wbich lies at the foundation of all these proceedings, and bas obtained, after protracted litigation, the decree against the respondeni. No other counsel cpuld feel the same desire as he, that the decree should not prove a brut,um fulm^n, nor the same interest in baffling the confessed fraudulent machinations of the respondent to escape its paymeht. �To import new counsel into the case at this stage of it would occa- sion delay and large additional expense, wbioh the receiver is not in funds to megt; and such counsel, being necessarily ignorant of its previous history and its very intricate details, would be unable to afford the advice and information to the receiver wbich the soliciter for the complainant can so readily fumish, and wbich are indispen- sably necessary to the receiver for the efficient discharge of his duties. �For these reasons I am of opinion that the receiver already ap- pointed should not be removed, and that be should not be directed not to employ the soliciter for the complainant. See Wetter v. SeMieper, 7 Abb. Pr. 92; Bank of Monroe v. Schermerhom, Clarke, Cb. 256; Siney v. Stage Co. 28 How. Pr. e81. ��� �