However a receiver or assignee or trustee may be appointed, he acquires title to the bank's assets.1 The appointment under a statute of trustees, the appointment of an assignee by deed in trust for creditors, or the appointment of a receiver by the court, are all methods of attaining this result. The suit to secure the appointment of a receiver may be brought by a creditor or a stockholder, with the proper averments to show the necessity.2 The bank is the necessary defendant; the officers need not be made parties.3 Where the suit is by a creditor, it is on behalf of all other creditors,4 and after other creditors have come in the plaintiff cannot discontinue the suit without their concurrence.5 Only one suit of the kind can be maintained; other creditors must come into that particular suit.6 Sometimes a judgment at law must have been obtained and at other times not.7 The controlling statute determines this fact. Where the stockholders sue for a receiver on account of corporate mismanagment, they must show their inability to obtain relief in the corporation itself.8 But if the suit is for the purpose of winding up the corporation, or of obtaining the stockholders' liability, the suit will not be brought, except by a creditor. In

1 Nevitt v. Bank of Port Gibson, 6 Smedes & M. 513; Haxton v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 13; De Wolf v. Sprague Mfg. Co., 11 R I. 380. But in some states he holds only an equitable title. Chicago Co. v. Park Nat. Bank, 44 I11. App. 150;

Crews v. Farmers' Bank, 31 Grat 348. I

2 See Sec. 86, ante.

3 But in practice they will always be made parties, because relief will be asked against them. When the right to a receiver arises upon insolvency, the bank is the only necessary defendant Attorney-General v. Columbia Bank, 1 Paige, 511.

4 See Sec. 86 et seq., ante.

5 Atlas Bank v. Nahant Bank, 23 Pick. 480.

6 Hurlbut v. Kelley, 62 Wis. 590. Compare Palmer v. Bank of Zurn-brota, 65 Minn. 90. A special procedure is sometimes given by statute. See In re Shackamoxon Bank, 4 Pa. Co. Ct R, 194; Tefft v. North River Bank, 14 N. Y. Supp. 8.

7 See Sec. 86 et seq, ante. Compare Am. Sav. Ass'n v. Bank, 65 Minn. 139.

8 This rule is embodied in the ninety-fourth equity rule of the United States Supreme Court. Use-lessness of such an application is an excuse for not making it such a suit where a receiver is appointed, it is really immaterial as to the defendants who are served whether the suit for the stockholders' liability should be brought by the creditors or the receiver. The relief is granted in the one action. "Where a receiver may be sued for by a state officer, such as an auditor of state,9 or bank commissioners,10 the courts are not ousted of their jurisdiction to grant a receiver on the application of creditors or stockholders.11 A receiver may be appointed by the court ex parte,12 where the statute does not require notice.13 Where there is no corporate management14 or where the corporation is dissolved,15 a receiver is appointed as a matter of course. Where two courts attempt to appoint receivers, the right depends upon the priority of judicial action.18 The number of receivers is discretionary with the court.17 If he acts, his failure to take an oath is no bar to his action.18 The payment allowed for his services is to be determined by the responsibility assumed, the skill and labor expended and the rate of compensation usually allowed for services of a like character.19 His bond is liable for his defaults.20