The appointment of the receiver does not dissolve the corporation. The bank may be suedl without joining the receiver,2 but he may be substituted and then the bank becomes merely a nominal party.3 But the receiver may be sued also with 4 or without the bank being joined.5 But he supersedes the officers of the bank in its management, and the title to all the assets of the bank vests in him.6 He may sue upon them in his own name,7 or he may use the name of the bank.8 He succeeds to all the bank's rights of action,9 including the rights of the bank to sue its officers for negligence in the management of its affairs,10 as well as for violations of the national banking law.11 But a cause of action which belongs to a creditor or person who has been defrauded by the officers of the bank he has no concern with and cannot release.12 It was formerly erroneously decided that he alone could sue for the negligence of the directors,13 or for violations of the banking law,14 but that idea has been thoroughly exploded, and a creditor on behalf of all may sue in equity, where he refuses to bring the action.15 The lawfulness of his appointment cannot be questioned by a debtor16 or by the stockholders.17 He may enforce the statutory liability of the stockholders by a suit, either against them singly18 at law, or in equity against all of them.19 The amount of the assessment upon the stockholders is determined by the comptroller,20 but a court having acquired jurisdiction for the appointment of a receiver may proceed and settle up all the affairs of the bank in one action.21 He is an officer of the United States, and hence may sue in the courts of the United States without regard to citizenship.22 He may bring an action without any authority from the comptroller.23

4Cadle v. Baker, 20 WalL 650; Washington Nat. Bank v. Eckels, 57 Fed. R 870.

5 In re Manufacturers' Nat Bank, 5 Biss. 499.

6 Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 301; Wright v. Merchants' Nat Bank, 1 Flip. 568.

7 Harvey v. Lord, 11 Biss. 144 Compare Wash. Nat Bank v. Eckels, 57 Fed. R 870. The appointment may be ex parte. Ell wood v. First Nat Bank, 41 Kan. 475, unless a st a tut e forbids it

8 Merchants' Bank v. Masonic Hall, 63 Ga. 549.

9 Price v. Abbott 17 Fed. R 506.

1 See Sec. 322, ante, note 6.

2 Denton v. Baker, 79 Fed. R 189

(C. C. A.). See Wolf v. National Bank, 178 111. 85.

8 Grant v.'Spokane Nat Bank, 47 Fed. R 673. He is entitled to be substituted. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. First Nat Bank, 6 Dak. 113. This case was reversed in Thompson v. Sioux Falls Nat Bank, 150 U. S. 231, but affirmed upon this point Denton v. Baker. 79 Fed. R 189.

4 Green v. Walkill Nat Bank, 7 Hun. 63.

5 Turner v. First Nat Bank, 26-Iowa, 562.

6 First Nat Bank v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383. In some jurisdictions he sues as assignee in the name of the assignor. Chicago Co. v. Park Nat Bank, 44 I11. App. 150.

But in others he has the legal title. Haxton v. Bishop, 3 Wend. 13; De Wolf v. Sprague Mfg. Co, 11 R I. 380.

7 First Nat. Bank v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383.

8 Case last cited.

9 Case v. Berwin, 22 La. Ann. 321; Movius v. Lee, 30 Fed. R. 298.

10Movius v. Lee, 30 Fed. R. 298.

11 Gerner v. Thompson, 74 Fed. R. 125; Hayden v. Thompson, 67 Fed. R.273.

12 Barnes v. Pogue, 29 Wkly. Law Bul. 382. This, of course, is correct because this right of action never belonged to the corporation. The court's reasoning in the case shows no proper understanding of the principle involved.

13 Howe v. Barney, 43 Fed. R. 608.

14 National Ex. Bank v. Peters, 44

Fed. R 13; Bailey v. Mosher, 63

Fed. R. 488,27 U. S. App. 339; Gerner v. Thompson, 74 Fed. R. 125. Hayden v. Thompson, 67 Fed. R. 273, required an order from the comptroller to the receiver, but Hayden v. Thompson; 71 Fed. R. 60, was contrary thereto. See Sec. 87, ante. All these cases are no longer authority. See next note.

15 Ex parte Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443; Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 88 N. Y. 52. If creditors have begun suit the appointment of a receiver does not supersede it. McElhanny v. First Nat. Bank, Fed. Cas. 8779.

16 Cadle v. Baker, 20 Wait 650; Piatt v. Beebe, 57 N. Y. 339.

17 See Sec. 70, ante. Washington Nat Bank v. Eckels, 57 Fed. R. 870.

18 See Sec. 70, ante.

19 See Sec. 70, ante.

20 See Sec. 70, ante.